The 2019 General Election - Campaign Debate and Discussion

[433N]

If you see the full video of him ranting like a loon you will see why he needed to apologise imo but it might be best to ask Burgon directly why he felt the need to apologise. Perhaps it was the lie he was apolgising for. Perhaps he just made a "mistake" like Mr Corbyn did when he shared content with pictures of an a obviously antisemitic mural.

Anyway, it is clear you wont accept any criticism of the Sainted Jeremy so I see little point in continuing this exchange.

Oh dear.

You're off topic, aren't you ? You are not presenting anything for debate or discussion. I present something for debate or discussion and you run in the opposite direction. Seems to me that all you want is a stick to beat Labour with. Go ahead, knock yourself out - hope it makes you feel better - I guess that is why you post here. Still I suppose you are in tune with the zeitgeist for this election.

Your comment that I "wont accept any criticism of the Sainted Jeremy" is just plain ignorant as you have no idea how I feel about Jeremy Corbyn - you think you do, but you really don't.

It is ironic that you see little point in continuing this exchange as (you perceive) that I wont (sic) accept any criticism of the Sainted Jeremy. So a valid point of an exchange would presumably be, that I would accept criticism of the Sainted Jeremy. Or more generally, an exchange only has a 'point' if the person who is not you changes their view. How boring and boorish. I generally interact with people in debate and discussion to help formulate and refine my own views. Being shouted at by people in entrenched positions will not do that, reasoned debate might. With that, I think I'll bow out of this thread since I'm obviously in the wrong place.

Feel free to have the last word if it means that much to you.

 

[cactustwirly]

No - Labour is meant to be a socialist party. It was founded on that basis and that is how it should be.

Oh dear god!
It has never been a Socialist party, Corbyn is turning it into one, and that concerns me greatly, hence I would never vote for Labour or it's dangerous Marxist policies.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Polls indicate that in spite of the continued Cult of Jeremy, the Tories are going to win this thing hands-down with an actual majority. Amazing isn't it? Doesn't matter how awful the incumbent is or how much he ducks media appearances, doesn't matter how badly the government performs, doesn't matter how bad things are - the public appear to still prefer that over Jeremy Corbyn. Very telling.

Just as many people are prepared to hold their nose and vote for Corbyn to keep the Tories out, more people appear to be able to ignore what Boris is and what the party will do in order to enable Brexit. I think it's that simple.

I really hope I'm not here in five-years time saying "I told you this would happen", though I fear I will be.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Oh dear god!
It has never been a Socialist party, Corbyn is turning it into one, and that concerns me greatly, hence I would never vote for Labour or it's dangerous Marxist policies.

I'm interested - which "dangerous, Marxist, policies" do you object to in the manifesto?

 

[Puffing Devil]

Another open question - what exactly do people believe that Corbyn should apologise for and what form should that apology take?

 

[NoMorePacers]

Oh dear god!
It has never been a Socialist party, Corbyn is turning it into one, and that concerns me greatly, hence I would never vote for Labour or it's dangerous Marxist policies.

Then I’m afraid you’re either clueless or wilfully ignorant about what Marxism is and what it involves.

 

[cactustwirly]

I'm interested - which "dangerous, Marxist, policies" do you object to in the manifesto?

State owned Broadband, just like China, what people can and can't see can be controlled by the state.
Irresponsible spending plans to bankrupt the country.
High taxes for the rich to put off investment and allow the state to swoop in.
Corbyn bangs on about economic equality, which sounds an awful lot like communism imo.

 

[cactustwirly]

Then I’m afraid you’re either clueless or wilfully ignorant about what Marxism is and what it involves.

I know exactly what Marxism is, it's dangerous and should have no place on any parties manifesto

 

[DarloRich]

Another open question - what exactly do people believe that Corbyn should apologise for and what form should that apology take?

Where to start? There is so much. Is harikari an option?

I really hope I'm not here in five-years time saying "I told you this would happen", though I fear I will be.

but that is exactly what you want to do!

 

[radamfi]

So called "socialist" countries are derided in the UK and USA. So let's compare national debt as a % of GDP:

UK 86%
USA 77%

Netherlands 52%
Sweden 39%
Denmark 34%

 

[Puffing Devil]

State owned Broadband, just like China, what people can and can't see can be controlled by the state.
Irresponsible spending plans to bankrupt the country.
High taxes for the rich to put off investment and allow the state to swoop in.
Corbyn bangs on about economic equality, which sounds an awful lot like communism imo.

That's a lot of rhetoric, not a shred of evidence or fact.

Maybe I missed the section which mentions state control of broadband content? Or the passage which says we'll bankrupt the country? Or maybe you're replaying what you've heard from other sources, rather than doing your own legwork?

 

[DarloRich]

oh dear. This doesn't look good!

General election 2019: Tory and Labour spending plans 'not credible' - IFS

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50585818

So called "socialist" countries are derided in the UK and USA. So let's compare national debt as a % of GDP:

UK 86%
USA 77%

Netherlands 52%
Sweden 39%
Denmark 34%

None of those countries are socialist.

Sweden has a coalition of Green & Social democrat
Denmark is Social Democrat government
Netherlands is a coalition of social democratic, Christian democratic and social liberal parties

 

[Puffing Devil]

Where to start? There is so much. Is harikari an option?

That really is the point. The dialogue has very much been "We expect to see an apology", though I doubt many calling for it have a clear idea of what they are looking for.

but that is exactly what you want to do!

Yep, that's me. Banged to rights. I want the country to have a shrinking economy and a wrecked NHS with diminished workers rights to prove my point. Exactly that. [/SARCASM]

 

[DarloRich]

That really is the point. The dialogue has very much been "We expect to see an apology", though I doubt many calling for it have a clear idea of what they are looking for.

but with respect there IS lot he could apologise for and quite a bit he should apologise for imo. The issue the other night was antisemitism.

 

[Puffing Devil]

oh dear. This doesn't look good!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50585818

I'll take your IFS and raise you an article in the FT, the well-known bastion of socialist thinking. Economists and academics back Labour spending plans

"The Labour party received a boost on Tuesday when 163 economists signed a public letter offering broad support for its proposals for higher public investment to kick start growth and raise productivity."​

 

[Puffing Devil]

but with respect there IS lot he could apologise for and quite a bit he should apologise for imo. The issue the other night was antisemitism.

What specifically with respect to antisemitism should be he be apologising for? You clearly want him to apologise - what should he say?

 

[DarloRich]

I'll take your IFS and raise you an article in the FT, the well-known bastion of socialist thinking. Economists and academics back Labour spending plans

"The Labour party received a boost on Tuesday when 163 economists signed a public letter offering broad support for its proposals for higher public investment to kick start growth and raise productivity."​

that isnt the same thing!

 

[Puffing Devil]

that isnt the same thing!

I'm a little confused now. The BBC piece says neither Labour nor the Tories have credible spending plans. The FT article says there is support for the Labour spending plans. What did I miss?

 

[DarloRich]

What specifically with respect to antisemitism should be he be apologising for? You clearly want him to apologise - what should he say?

Can I have some of the salary Seamus Milne takes home please?

he should, personally, :

• apologise very clearly and openly for his own behaviour, views and comments,
• admit he was wrong to support and champion terrorist organisations like Hamas and Hezbollah
• admit going to a memorial for Palestinian terrorist murders was wrong and caused offense ( and that he lied about attending in the first place)
• apologsze for calling these people his friends,
• apologise for appearing on stage with these people,
• apologise for inviting them to Parliament
• admit that his handling of the problems of AS within the labour party have not been good enough, firm enough or quick enough
• commit to putting that right by bringing in a complete zero tolerance regime AND saying he will enforce it regardless of the rank of the person involved with immediate suspension followed by exclusion.
• he should apologise for letting down his jewish supporters and commit to winning back their trust

He can chuck in some mealy mouthed nonsense about being on a journey and educating himself and listening to stakeholders and colleagues if it makes him feel better but he needs to be blunt in saying he was wrong and will change.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm interested - which "dangerous, Marxist, policies" do you object to in the manifesto?

It doesn't matter what's in the manifesto. Corbyn and his inner circle are absolutely committed ideologues who know the principle of taking small steps to power. The fact our constitution has been trodden on so damagingly already in the last several years - beginning with Clegg and Cameron's attempt to abolish the Lords, not to mention the Brexit process - makes me think Corbyn is a dangerous choice.

Boris is just as bad, but in a different way.

 

[DarloRich]

I'm a little confused now. The BBC piece says neither Labour nor the Tories have credible spending plans. The FT article says there is support for the Labour spending plans. What did I miss?

The FT article says the economists offer broad support for its proposals for higher public investment to kick start growth and raise productivity. I am not sure anyone can disagree with that! Sadly the FT article is behind a paywall so most wont be able to read it.

The IFS say Labour aren't being honest about how that investment will be paid for. This quote is of interest:

Labour, he added, "pretends that huge increases in spending can be financed by just big companies and the rich".

Mr Johnson also said it was "highly likely" Labour would need to raise taxes beyond what it is promising to pay for its proposed £80bn a year in extra spending.

"In reality, a change in the scale and the scope of the state that they propose would require more broad-based tax increases at some point."

The IFS are said to be an independent, ideology free, economic research and education body. I have seen that challenged ( and it is interesting they also crictise the Tories here) at times but they seem to be pretty straight, if a little old fashioned.

 

[radamfi]

None of those countries are socialist.

They aren't. They have high levels of privatisation and have free markets. But they are considered socialist by British/American political commentators and politicians because of their culture of "tax and spend".

 

[NoMorePacers]

State owned Broadband, just like China, what people can and can't see can be controlled by the state.
Irresponsible spending plans to bankrupt the country.
High taxes for the rich to put off investment and allow the state to swoop in.
Corbyn bangs on about economic equality, which sounds an awful lot like communism imo.

If you think any form of equality is communism, then have fun trying to convince me you’re not anything but a privileged toff stuck directly in Boris’s pocket.

Also as far as I’m aware the only tax they want to raise is corporation tax, and if Amazon leaves the country because they actually have to pay tax then they can quite frankly go **** themselves.

And I fail to see how their “irresponsible” spending plans are more irresponsible than the Tories.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Clegg and Cameron's attempt to abolish the Lords

Abolishing the unelected House of Lords is now undemocratic?

I think I've heard everything now.

 

[Tetchytyke]

State owned Broadband, just like China, what people can and can't see can be controlled by the state.

I missed the bit where he said he was going to install a firewall.

The Tories, on the other hand, seriously suggested a law that would see you having to go to the newsagent and buy a coupon if you wanted to watch videos of consenting adults having sex with each other.

You should also have a look at the number of websites this Tory government have said you're not allowed to look at. Except you can't, because this Tory government won't tell you.

It's so bad that Reporters Without Borders list the current UK government as "enemies of the internet".

So...you were saying?

 

[thenorthern]

Apparently Labour has now told its candidates in leave voting areas to focus less on having a second referendum as surprise surprise people who voted leave don't want another vote. Apparently as well they overestimated the impact the Liberal Democrats were having on their vote.

I kind of understand that as there are places like Nottinghamshire which contain a lot of marginal seats and the Liberal Democrats have never won a Westminster seat in the county and only hold a single seat on the county council, no seats on Nottingham City Council and a couple of seats on district councils. All the marginal seats in Nottinghamshire voted leave in relatively large numbers and telling leave voters in places like Mansfield that having a second referendum is the best option is not going to convince voters in Mansfield to vote Labour.

 

[Kite159]

It doesn't matter what's in the manifesto. Corbyn and his inner circle are absolutely committed ideologues who know the principle of taking small steps to power. The fact our constitution has been trodden on so damagingly already in the last several years - beginning with Clegg and Cameron's attempt to abolish the Lords, not to mention the Brexit process - makes me think Corbyn is a dangerous choice.

Boris is just as bad, but in a different way.

Didn't Blair manage to change the Lords to make it smaller, but didn't go as far as abolishing it outright to be replaced by an elected upper house

 

[Kite159]

I missed the bit where he said he was going to install a firewall.

The Tories, on the other hand, seriously suggested a law that would see you having to go to the newsagent and buy a coupon if you wanted to watch videos of consenting adults having sex with each other.

You should also have a look at the number of websites this Tory government have said you're not allowed to look at. Except you can't, because this Tory government won't tell you.

It's so bad that Reporters Without Borders list the current UK government as "enemies of the internet".

So...you were saying?

Wasn't the age verification system first mooted around the time of the 2010 Digital Economy act and got pushed back due to being hard to bring in?

Can you imagine you will be able to have free access on Corbynet without some websites being blocked to "protect" citizens?

 

[thenorthern]

Didn't Blair manage to change the Lords to make it smaller, but didn't go as far as abolishing it outright to be replaced by an elected upper house

Yes he removed the automatic right of hereditary peers to sit in there meaning that the lords is now mostly made up of life peers with a small number of hereditary peers who are elected by other lords when a vacancy becomes available. MPs did once vote to have a fully elected upper chamber but the problem remains the same what type of elected upper house do we want?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Can you imagine you will be able to have free access on Corbynet without some websites being blocked to "protect" citizens?

Yes, I can perfectly well imagine it. Nationalised broadband simply means that a publicly owned company provides broadband instead of private companies doing it. It does not imply any kind of censorship, and it's absurd to suggest it does.

There are many, many, things you can legitimately criticise Corbyn for, but to suggest he somehow doesn't believe in free speech and wants to do things like censor information really is a low, untrue, and pretty repulsive smear. (Which I guess makes it exactly the kind of thing you can expect from the Tories under Mr. Johnson )