Politics

[Happy Face 29]

i must have missed this story first time around. he'll need to watch his words if he doesn't want to go the way of pussy riot 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/26/snowden-denounces-russias-unworkable-and-unjustifiable-surveilla/

 

Think it would be more of a diplomatic nightmare if Russia started Pussy Rioting Americans... even if the American establishment don't like the bloke.

[Dr Gloom 21568]

still, the point about where he's taken sanctuary stands. 

 

exposing american snooping was brave, and admirable, but he has to accept charges of hypocrisy - he's residing in a brutal quasi-democracy, with a leader who keeps his grip of the country in part by a domestic surveillance system to rival the NSA, who thinks nothing of brainwashing the Russian public through state media propaganda, and who is happy to massacre innocent civilians. 

Edited September 26, 2016 by Dr Gloom

[Rayvin 5131]

Aye but he can't actually leave, can he? How would you get out of Russia if your passport was revoked?

[ewerk 29809]

I'd imagine that there aren't too many beacons of democracy in the world that don't have an extradition treaty with USA.

[Renton 20620]

A genuine hypothetical question mainly for NJS, and maybe others like Rayvin, Gemmill, HF etc.

 

Would you have preferred the far left Labour party of the 1980s had not been reformed by Kinnock, Smith, and Blair and Labour had remained a "virtuous" opposition party the last two decades?

[Dr Gloom 21568]

Aye but he can't actually leave, can he? How would you get out of Russia if your passport was revoked?

 

if he had any balls, or integrity, he'd go back to america. right now he faces jail and many there think he's a traitor but he has lots of supporters too, who applaud what he did. it wouldn't surprise me if a deal could be done behind the scenes

[Rayvin 5131]

A genuine hypothetical question mainly for NJS, and maybe others like Rayvin, Gemmill, HF etc.

 

Would you have preferred the far left Labour party of the 1980s had not been reformed by Kinnock, Smith, and Blair and Labour had remained a "virtuous" opposition party the last two decades?

 

I think that's a hard one to answer. I don't know, in truth, as I've only properly been politically aware through New Labour and now the Tories. New Labour might well have been a necessary antidote to the Tories back then, but they aren't the solution now - the world has changed, inequality is higher than ever - centrist politics just isn't going to cut it. Plus there were other geopolitical forces at play back then with the fall of Soviet Russia - were the old left of Labour considered to be too close to them? I don't know in truth, I'm asking. New Labour aren't the solution now though, they lost the last election - so how can they be?

 

I wanted to post this a while ago, and it may well have come up on here before:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/if-people-voted-for-policies-the-green-party-would-win-the-next-election-9887199.html

 

I think it would be very interesting if this survey could be repeated now. I suspect that more people agree with Corbyn's policies than they realise, given that when this was done in 2014, the Greens would have won. Obviously you could point to this and say that the fact that the Green policies are so popular and yet the party itself is so irrelevant are evidence that this doesn't work, but that doesn't take into consideration that we're in FPTP and Corbyn has a much bigger advantage than they would.

 

The challenge to him is to de-toxify his brand (which his own party toxified on his behalf, incredibly) and make it about the policies in a significant enough way that people actually listen. For all CT's crowing about people choosing the party with the soundest economic theories, that report has his beloved Tories on 14%. Their policies aren't popular at all, they just have massive media bias on their side. It needs to be about policies - if we ever get to that point, we might actually start living in a functional democracy.

Edited September 26, 2016 by Rayvin

[NJS 4281]

A genuine hypothetical question mainly for NJS, and maybe others like Rayvin, Gemmill, HF etc.

 

Would you have preferred the far left Labour party of the 1980s had not been reformed by Kinnock, Smith, and Blair and Labour had remained a "virtuous" opposition party the last two decades?

No, I think Kinnock and Smith were decent men who moved in a reasonable direction while maintaining their principles but it all went wrong with Blair.

 

Stupid thing is that by 97 people were so tired of the tories that they could have done some proper good but they just stayed safe.

[Christmas Tree 4542]

A genuine hypothetical question mainly for NJS, and maybe others like Rayvin, Gemmill, HF etc.

 

Would you have preferred the far left Labour party of the 1980s had not been reformed by Kinnock, Smith, and Blair and Labour had remained a "virtuous" opposition party the last two decades?

And they accuse me of fishing

[Happy Face 29]

if he had any balls, or integrity, he'd go back to america. right now he faces jail and many there think he's a traitor but he has lots of supporters too, who applaud what he did. it wouldn't surprise me if a deal could be done behind the scenes

 

Ridiculous.

 

He's the bravest bastard in the entire American intelligence community.  Sacrificed his entire life for his principles... and those of America which he had always believed in.  

 

Choosing not to walk into the type of incarceration/torture that Chelsea Manning has endured (solitary confinement, driven to hunger strike etc) rather than continuing to shine a light on the wrong doing of many governments to a massive audience wouldn't be brave.  It would be complete stupidity.

[Gemmill 43234]

Absurd to say the bloke should just head back to the US and take his lumps.

[Dr Gloom 21568]

i just find it highly ironic that he's ended up in russia, not exactly what you'd call a beacon of freedom or a place where the rights and privacy of its people are respected.

 

And if he's so principled, why is he taking sanctuary there?

Edited September 26, 2016 by Dr Gloom

[Renton 20620]

No, I think Kinnock and Smith were decent men who moved in a reasonable direction while maintaining their principles but it all went wrong with Blair.

 

Stupid thing is that by 97 people were so tired of the tories that they could have done some proper good but they just stayed safe.

Sure you were disparaging of kinnock recently and called him part of the NL establishment?

 

Since neither him nor Smith saw power I guess you're saying that Blair was preferable to the Tories at the time, with large caveats? Fair enough.

[NJS 4281]

Sure you were disparaging of kinnock recently and called him part of the NL establishment?

 

Since neither him nor Smith saw power I guess you're saying that Blair was preferable to the Tories at the time, with large caveats? Fair enough.

I liked Kinnock but recently he's been a bit too enamoured with Blair.

 

It would have been interesting if he'd won in 92.

[ewerk 29809]

i just find it highly ironic that he's ended up in russia, not exactly what you'd call a beacon of freedom or a place where the rights and privacy of its people are respected.

 

Where else would he be safe?

[Renton 20620]

I think that's a hard one to answer. I don't know, in truth, as I've only properly been politically aware through New Labour and now the Tories. New Labour might well have been a necessary antidote to the Tories back then, but they aren't the solution now - the world has changed, inequality is higher than ever - centrist politics just isn't going to cut it. Plus there were other geopolitical forces at play back then with the fall of Soviet Russia - were the old left of Labour considered to be too close to them? I don't know in truth, I'm asking. New Labour aren't the solution now though, they lost the last election - so how can they be?

 

I wanted to post this a while ago, and it may well have come up on here before:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/if-people-voted-for-policies-the-green-party-would-win-the-next-election-9887199.html

 

I think it would be very interesting if this survey could be repeated now. I suspect that more people agree with Corbyn's policies than they realise, given that when this was done in 2014, the Greens would have won. Obviously you could point to this and say that the fact that the Green policies are so popular and yet the party itself is so irrelevant are evidence that this doesn't work, but that doesn't take into consideration that we're in FPTP and Corbyn has a much bigger advantage than they would.

 

The challenge to him is to de-toxify his brand (which his own party toxified on his behalf, incredibly) and make it about the policies in a significant enough way that people actually listen. For all CT's crowing about people choosing the party with the soundest economic theories, that report has his beloved Tories on 14%. Their policies aren't popular at all, they just have massive media bias on their side. It needs to be about policies - if we ever get to that point, we might actually start living in a functional democracy.

Thanks for the response, I'm on a phone with shitty internet connection now so can't answer fully, other than to say it's not all about policy or media bias. The biggest issue with Corbyn for me is his leadership abilities. He has none. You might blame the Sun for his forthcoming electoral obliteration, but if so I suspect you are missing the elephant in the room, the man himself.

 

Personally I can't stand this revisionist shit that new labour were a necessary evil or simply Tory-lites. They were a progressive uniting party who won 3 consecutive elections. There mistake was failing to adequately challenge the economic narrative under Brown, then getting a catastrophic leader in with Ed Miliband, who fatally changed the voting system as well as failing with the electorate.

 

But to gain power, you have to take the people with you. Corbyn simply can't.

[Christmas Tree 4542]

Dianne Abbott running the health service ffs

[Dr Gloom 21568]

Thanks for the response, I'm on a phone with shitty internet connection now so can't answer fully, other than to say it's not all about policy or media bias. The biggest issue with Corbyn for me is his leadership abilities. He has none. You might blame the Sun for his forthcoming electoral obliteration, but if so I suspect you are missing the elephant in the room, the man himself.

 

Personally I can't stand this revisionist shit that new labour were a necessary evil or simply Tory-lites. They were a progressive uniting party who won 3 consecutive elections. There mistake was failing to adequately challenge the economic narrative under Brown, then getting a catastrophic leader in with Ed Miliband, who fatally changed the voting system as well as failing with the electorate.

 

But to gain power, you have to take the people with you. Corbyn simply can't.

 

Iraq was their biggest mistake. 

[Dr Gloom 21568]

Dianne Abbott running the health service ffs

 

"do as i say, not as i do", she says, as she stuffs down another iced bun.

 

bit like her views on education.

 

still preferable to hunt the cunt mind. 

[Rayvin 5131]

Thanks for the response, I'm on a phone with shitty internet connection now so can't answer fully, other than to say it's not all about policy or media bias. The biggest issue with Corbyn for me is his leadership abilities. He has none. You might blame the Sun for his forthcoming electoral obliteration, but if so I suspect you are missing the elephant in the room, the man himself.

 

Personally I can't stand this revisionist shit that new labour were a necessary evil or simply Tory-lites. They were a progressive uniting party who won 3 consecutive elections. There mistake was failing to adequately challenge the economic narrative under Brown, then getting a catastrophic leader in with Ed Miliband, who fatally changed the voting system as well as failing with the electorate.

 

But to gain power, you have to take the people with you. Corbyn simply can't.

 

Being honest, I can see your side of this totally - I was with New Labour, and Blair, and then Brown, right up until the Tories came into power. Labour surrendered the narrative on austerity and the crisis to the Tories and allowed them to rip into the country because they thought it was more important to be viewed as being in the centreground, even though the Tories had pulled it rightwards, than to be doing what was actually right.

 

So I guess you could say, without comment on Blair or Brown, that New Labour lost me under Miliband.

Edited September 26, 2016 by Rayvin

[Dr Gloom 21568]

Where else would he be safe?

 

i have no idea. i was reading recently though that his russian lawyers were working on returning him home and that obama might be persuaded to pardon him. it would be a fitting end to his presidency if it were to happen. all he's doing in russia is causing the US more embarrassment with every interview he gives. 

[Rayvin 5131]

I would also say that New Labour in power was better, wars aside, than the Tories in power. The problem now is that New Labour are only prepared to get into power by emulating the Tories. That became clear over the last few years. Corbyn isn't a natural leader and isn't even a particularly good leader. But his policies will make a difference. Which is why he needs to make it about those policies, and not him.

[Dr Gloom 21568]

i'm with renton on this. you don't have to swing as far to the right as NL did, but you have to make concessions to get into power. there is little point in principled opposition if the leader and his message fail to resonate with voters. 

[Rayvin 5131]

i'm with renton on this. you don't have to swing as far to the right as NL did, but you have to make concessions to get into power. there is little point in principled opposition if the leader and his message fail to resonate with voters. 

 

I disagree - on the basis that the electorate need a fucking shake to get them out of their comfort zones to make a meaningful choice for once. They can't just vote for two sides of the same coin now. And did you see the report I linked to before - in a parallel universe where Britain elects parties based on policies, we would have a Green government. How can you look at that and think that compromise is what is needed? It's compromise only with the media barons and the rich. If we can get the discussion onto policies, the rest will fall into place.

 

It'll never happen of course, but I'm sick to fuck of the system as it stands now and can't personally go on 'compromising' with the right wing media. Not when the overwhelming majority of the country agree with left wing policies. To me, the issue there is that people are force fed bullshit in the news. Not that the policies are wrong.

Edited September 26, 2016 by Rayvin

[Happy Face 29]

I'll gladly concede that Blair/Brown was better than a hypothetical 37 years of uninterrupted Tory rule that would have made all the mistakes we can criticise the Labour government for without any nods to the left whatsoever.

 

Hypothetically though, a more left leaning party could have got into power in 1997 or 2001.  No Iraq, no 7/7, less concessions to the city, more public housing and stronger restraints on lenders, lessening the impact from the financial crisis, still in Europe.

 

Is that hypothetically worse?