The Politics Thread 2019

[WhiteHorseRam]

34 minutes ago, Uptherams said:

There is no identifiable extremist group within the Tory party. Labour has many identity groups that become more extreme and more secluded from society with every passing year. Focus groups are being and have been conducted and people in the Midlands and in the North that have voted Labour many times in the past, from working class backgrounds, do not know what the party is even meant to stand for anymore or who it is trying to actually represent and they are turning away. All because Labour have turned their backs on them and opened the doors to identity politics. The kind of people who want to be represented as a wider member of society. Not because of X,Y,Z identity. Simple requests versus demands imposed on everyone else because of a few hundreds of thousands of voters from each identity group. 

We started talking about electability/non-electability ……. well I did anyway.

Don't mistake voters' disillusionment with Jezza Corbyn Superstar with actually liking the Tory Comedy Fringe who damage their broader appeal.

Bojo will win the GE based on being less rubbish than Jezza. That's all.

 

[Highgate]

3 hours ago, Angry Ram said:

Will never get past the Senate.. Still no credible opposition, he’s a shoe in again next year.

You are right...he will be impeached in the House...but it seems there is no way the Senate will remove him as president, so he should make it to the election.  I disagree that he's a shoo-in to win the election though.  He can't get above a 42% approval rating nationwide and his disapproval rating is consistently above 50%.  The bizarre electoral college system might come to his rescue again, but it looks like he will lose the popular vote by more than 3 million votes this time round.  Whoever the Democrats choose, they can't be as a bad a candidate as Hillery Clinton was.

My money is still on the Democratic candidate. (Although given my record against the bookies, that's probably good news for Trump)

[King Kevin]

1 hour ago, uttoxram75 said:

I believe Johnson has far murkier stuff in his locker than Corbyn has.

Get out ,Jennifer Arcuri  is in a different league to Diane Abbott.

[Angry Ram]

39 minutes ago, Highgate said:

You are right...he will be impeached in the House...but it seems there is no way the Senate will remove him as president, so he should make it to the election.  I disagree that he's a shoo-in to win the election though.  He can't get above a 42% approval rating nationwide and his disapproval rating is consistently above 50%.  The bizarre electoral college system might come to his rescue again, but it looks like he will lose the popular vote by more than 3 million votes this time round.  Whoever the Democrats choose, they can't be as a bad a candidate as Hillery Clinton was.

My money is still on the Democratic candidate. (Although given my record against the bookies, that's probably good news for Trump)

Who is the democratic candidate though? Bloomberg is the only one with a remote chance. 
He my lose the popular vote for sure, he did last time but he wins those key states. Jobs a goodun. 

[Highgate]

2 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

Who is the democratic candidate though? Bloomberg is the only one with a remote chance. 
He my lose the popular vote for sure, he did last time but he wins those key states. Jobs a goodun. 

The only 5 that have any chance are Biden (gaff prone - running on a 'I know Obama' platform), Sanders (commie*), Warren (commie*), Buttigieg (No experience, disliked by African-American voters it seems), Bloomberg (really disliked by African-Americans and other minorities due to his stop and frisk policy while he was mayor of New York).

Take your pick.  There would all make better Presidents than Trump in my view.

* According to certain sections of the US media. 

 

[Angry Ram]

2 hours ago, uttoxram75 said:

New Labour was acceptable to the moneyed elite. Murdoch vetted Blair at his private residence before switching the Sun’s allegiance to him before the 1997 election. 
 

Labour would have walked it without Murdochs help anyway.

Corbyn is someone the elite truly fear. He cannot be bought. His principles are not for sale.

The billionaire owners of the press have tried every smear they can to discredit a man who wants genuine change, that’s what will cost Labour the election.

Any Labour leader with socialist principles will face the same thunderstorm of abuse and character assassination in the future.

He’s done more than enough damage to himself without any press intervention. He’s associated himself with the wrong groups and spouted they wrong things. The press don’t get him to support extreme groups, Corbyn does that off his own back. 
The few good traits are lost in the many bad ones. He’s tarnished way too much now. Labour would do well to get rid and move on. 

[Angry Ram]

5 minutes ago, Highgate said:

The only 5 that have any chance are Biden (gaff prone - running on a 'I know Obama' platform), Sanders (commie*), Warren (commie*), Buttigieg (No experience, disliked by African-American voters it seems), Bloomberg (really disliked by African-Americans and other minorities due to his stop and frisk policy while he was mayor of New York).

Take your pick.  There would all make better Presidents than Trump in my view.

* According to certain sections of the US media. 

 

I’ve just come back from the US and he has a lot more support than anyone would admit publicly. NY on the outside is anti-Trump but many I spoke to privately liked him. Taboo though, tho shalt never say anything in public for fear of reprisals. 
 

[SSD]

Eastern Europe countries in NATO and ourselves contribute more than 2% GDP whilst the powerful EU countries contribute 1-2%.

How is this fair?

[maxjam]

Gotta admit, this is funny ?

 

 

 

[Highgate]

16 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

I’ve just come back from the US and he has a lot more support than anyone would admit publicly. NY on the outside is anti-Trump but many I spoke to privately liked him. Taboo though, tho shalt never say anything in public for fear of reprisals.

You are mixing with the wrong crowd... ? 

 

[Stive Pesley]

2 hours ago, Uptherams said:

But not Jeremy. Just try treating him like you would anyone else when it comes to his association and affection towards extremists and terrorists and dictators of all kinds. 

OK

That's Pinochet (left) - dictator of Chile, human rights violator, torturer and murderer of his own people

That's the Shah of Iran (left) - dictator, torturer and murderer of his own people

That's President Mubarak (right) - corrupt murdering dictator of Egypt

That's King Fahd of Saudi Arabia (in the dress. Left) - dictator and human rights abuser extraordinaire

 

Do you want me to carry on? Botha in South Africa, Zia in Pakistan, Suharto in Indonesia...all of these people were entertained by Thatcher and had the blood of their own people on their hands.

Politicians meet other politicians. It's called diplomacy.

The repetition of the "friends of Hamas" trope against Corbyn is a sure sign of someone whose opinion on the matter can be safely ignored

 

 

 

[Angry Ram]

6 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

OK

That's Pinochet (left) - dictator of Chile, human rights violator, torturer and murderer of his own people

That's the Shah of Iran (left) - dictator, torturer and murderer of his own people

That's President Mubarak (right) - corrupt murdering dictator of Egypt

That's King Fahd of Saudi Arabia (in the dress. Left) - dictator and human rights abuser extraordinaire

 

Do you want me to carry on? Botha in South Africa, Zia in Pakistan, Suharto in Indonesia...all of these people were entertained by Thatcher and had the blood of their own people on their hands.

Politicians meet other politicians. It's called diplomacy.

The repetition of the "friends of Hamas" trope against Corbyn is a sure sign of someone whose opinion on the matter can be safely ignored

 

 

 

Thank god you pointed out who was on the left and right..  Phew.

[Uptherams]

9 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

Do you want me to carry on?

Sorry but how many did she meet when she wasn't the PM? There's a very clear distinction. How many of these meetings took place strictly out in open or have footage and transcripts? Is thatcher doing this on behalf of the state and crown? Very clear distinction. 

A man who would likely refuse a meeting with the President of the United States, but gladly meet with extremists and call them friends. 

[Angry Ram]

25 minutes ago, Highgate said:

You are mixing with the wrong crowd... ? 

 

They were all nice guys, bikers or not.. Very friendly.

[Stive Pesley]

10 minutes ago, Uptherams said:

Sorry but how many did she meet when she wasn't the PM? There's a very clear distinction. How many of these meetings took place strictly out in open or have footage and transcripts? Is thatcher doing this on behalf of the state and crown? Very clear distinction. 

A man who would likely refuse a meeting with the President of the United States, but gladly meet with extremists and call them friends. 

Thanks. It's good to know the boundaries of when you think it's acceptable to entertain a murderer.

In some ways you're quite the humanitarian ?

[jono]

5 hours ago, GboroRam said:

You do recognise that privatisation in the NHS, on any scale, is hugely unpopular, and that any government that was planning it would be doing it as quietly and as under the radar as possible? We have a redacted document that Labour claim says categorically that the NHS was involved in discussions (when the Tories said it was not discussed). I've even seen claims that the unredacted version that Labour claim to have seen is Russian interference, but I don't see the Tories releasing the document (or any part of it) in an effort to put those rumours to bed?

If you're so confident that the Tories, or the pink Labour party that preceded Corbyn, will not privatise the NHS then you are very trusting of people who have shown they cannot be trusted. I for one am not prepared to take that risk.

I think you need to contact any decent news agency and get the documents that I suspect are available. 

I just love the way Corbyns labour campaigns by conspiracy theory. Jezza has the document .. so why doesn’t he spill the beans ?

its scare mongering BS. Lots of private companies provide services and equipment to the NHS they always have done since its inception. The NHS doesn’t make drugs, it doesn’t make artificial limbs or ultrasound machines. .. what actually do you mean by privatisation ? Some dread revelation that the sunshine cleaning company does deep cleans for a provincial NHS trust. ? 
 

 

[Stive Pesley]

It's funny how the debate seems to descend into a semantic exploration of what is actually meant by "privatisation"

Ultimately the most likely scenario is that we have a more formal two tier system

1. Free NHS - long waiting lists, limited care, limited services

2. Paid tier. the NHS equivalent of priority boarding. More or less the same treatments just no waiting and enhanced service options

 

Can anyone honestly tell me they think this is never going to happen ?

 

 

[jono]

55 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

Thanks. It's good to know the boundaries of when you think it's acceptable to entertain a murderer.

In some ways you're quite the humanitarian ?

Good post and illustrative of the hypocrisy of politics in general, but is a Pity Jezza doesn’t have much in the way of boundaries either

He does have some wonderful peace loving mates (Not)  yet his supporters can’t possibly accept that he is anything other than a well meaning kindly bloke listening to the oppressed. 

honest Stiv .. look at who he has met and shared platforms with. It isn’t a daily mail ranters view it is documented ! ..

if a Tory went on a platform with a far right group .. think of the meltdown on here .. double standards. It devalues so much of what is said on here for a socialist solution to our national problems. 

[Uptherams]

10 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

It's funny how the debate seems to descend into a semantic exploration of what is actually meant by "privatisation"

Ultimately the most likely scenario is that we have a more formal two tier system

1. Free NHS - long waiting lists, limited care, limited services

2. Paid tier. the NHS equivalent of priority boarding. More or less the same treatments just no waiting and enhanced service options

 

Can anyone honestly tell me they think this is never going to happen ?

 

 

No, I think what is far more likely is private businesses offering GP practices. Gyms and health clubs that provide it free with your membership, etc. Like some already do. it's a trend and a good one. 

[AdamRam]

27 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

It's funny how the debate seems to descend into a semantic exploration of what is actually meant by "privatisation"

Ultimately the most likely scenario is that we have a more formal two tier system

1. Free NHS - long waiting lists, limited care, limited services

2. Paid tier. the NHS equivalent of priority boarding. More or less the same treatments just no waiting and enhanced service options

 

Can anyone honestly tell me they think this is never going to happen ?

 

 

It already does, I have private health care which is option 2.