Comrade Corbyn

thebigfredc posted:

Hmack

Answer 1

The phrase means test always conjures up lots of bureaucratic , intrusive forms in my mind but one would think that it would be easier with data kept on computers these days. But yes I am in favour of means testing all benefits.

Answer 2.

Yes I think a tax cut would be nice but I don't think I should be the sole beneficiary - I am willing to share the windfall with all those in work.

Ray

Sorry to come to this so late:

I do see some merit in means testing some benefits. 

I think a tax cut is pie in the sky. Did not the IFS estimate that if things stay as they are the standard rate of income tax will need to increase by 15p to cover social care costs.

I would go further and cut the state pension by 5% over the next ten years for all those pensioner households with an income 10% above median income.

On buses specifically. I recently caught a bus and of the thirty people on the bus only two were paying - one was a young mum with a baby and one teenager obviously travelling doing  her weekly shop. She paid £13 to cover a return journey of 12 miles. Now on this bus were people who were simply travelling around the countryside for recreation and two pensioners with household incomes over well over £50k both living in large houses worth over £500k. One of whom rents houses out to people like the lady paying the fare, whom I strongly suspect does not have a household income anywhere near the median income for my area (£24k).

I should also make the point that the bus several area are gradually disappearing so whatever funding structure incorporating these free fares being used is not working. In my current small town we now actually have more bus stops then daily bus services.

Finally at a more macro level, I can see the  social care costs issue being kicked into the long grass until finally it all falls apart and then an unfair adjustment will need to be made affecting a narrower  group of people  more deeply than is morally or economically sensible. The state pension changes were foreseeable and should have been phased in gradually - I know of two papers predicting what has happened which were given strict ignorings. The effect of this has been compounded. in my view, by then treating the current lucky crop of state pensioners generally relatively generous treatment.

This is turning into war and peace so I will hang up now but for a pre-emptive strike. I do not argument that this generation currently receiving state benefits are somehow more 'worthy' than future generations because they have worked hard/paid in etc. It is very hard to wee that someone in the working population now is going to see the same provision on their old age even if they had the same working record. Nor do I like the argument that the younger generations are somehow inferior to the previous which often seems to e trotted out. My children seem fine to me (I may be biased of course).

Gold star if you are still reading this and thanks for your time.

I think the thing that I and many others of the older generation find difficult is that many of the younger generation regard things like a latest generation Xbox (Or Playstation), the latest Samsung or Apple 'phone, a 50" high end television and in some cases a limitless stream of tobacco as their minimum entitlement, even when they can't afford to maintain that level of expenditure; and then some of them complain that they can't afford to buy food.

I haven't watched BBC evening news for years. I find it too starchy about what content I've been given to have an opinion about.

Much prefer the ITV news, especially when presented by the lovely Tom Bradby. Adding much needed personable quips over the state of affairs.

We’ve departed from Jeremy Corbyn who clearly has challenged of his own.  

BBC reporting that Christine Shawcroft has resigned from Labour's ruling body after the anti-semitism row.  So far, perfectly reasonable.   But the report then goes on to say Eddie Izzard is to replace her

Is this some sort of gift to the Conservative Party?  

Send in the Clowns.....

The Strat (Fender) posted:

We’ve departed from Jeremy Corbyn who clearly has challenged of his own.  

Indeed, especially as today we celebrate the rebirth of a wiry, bearded anti-authoritarian whose brilliant oratory convinced the oppressed masses of a small downtrodden country that he could save them... :-)

thebigfredc posted:

A lot of stuff in the papers about the current Leader of the Opposition hanging around with top Eastern Bloc  spys in the eighties (sounds like a good title for a Fall song) although I notice they don't go so far as to actually call him a spy. I remember the Labour Party ending their conferences with a rousing rendition of the 'Red Flag' during the Foot and early Kinnock eras. He seems to have been more enthused with the Soviet Union than the European Union.

A terrorist sympathising communist looking to put his hand deeper into your pocket. Avoid 

Huge posted:

I think the thing that I and many others of the older generation find difficult is that many of the younger generation regard things like a latest generation Xbox (Or Playstation), the latest Samsung or Apple 'phone, a 50" high end television and in some cases a limitless stream of tobacco as their minimum entitlement, even when they can't afford to maintain that level of expenditure; and then some of them complain that they can't afford to buy food.

Same old same old. I am a member of the older generation and do not see this. Not many of the peeps I see collecting food parcels fall into your world view.

Define many and how this younger generation is different to any other. All people that were young in the 70s were work shy strikers.

I see the UK is participating in air strikes against the Assad regimes military infrastructure. It was inevitable given the warnings previously issued over the ramifications for Assad should he  use chemical weapons. And our man Corbyn is not surprisingly against it. I wonder at what point he would ever advocate the use of military force.

I think it highly unlikely that he would. 

thebigfredc posted:

I see the UK is participating in air strikes against the Assad regimes military infrastructure. It was inevitable given the warnings previously issued over the ramifications for Assad should he  use chemical weapons. And our man Corbyn is not surprisingly against it. I wonder at what point he would ever advocate the use of military force.

I’m against it.  According to polls the British people are against any action in Syria 43-22 with 34% unsure.  And this is with a 61% support for the belief Assad is responsible.

What conflict the U.K. has been involved in has actually resulted in some positive outcome?

There hasn’t been an investigation to ascertain who was responsible.  What if it turns out IS or other anti-Assad forces were responsible?  Yes chemical weapons are abhorrent, but then so are cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells, and at the end of the day any bomb used to target civilians is designed for one thing... to maim and kill!

There has been a great rushing to apportion blame for this, so far, alleged, use of chemical weapons, and it seems that, as in the case of the Skripal incident here in the UK, we have decided to take punitive action before being in a position to prove beyond any doubt where the responsibility lies.

Whether one can realistically ever expect to be able to do so remains moot, but there does seem to me to be an overriding consideration being overlooked by the Western governments and media.

Our response to Assad's "clear breach of International Law, regarding the use of chemical weapons" is to bombard with Tomahawk missiles, several sites where these agents are either stored in bulk, or where research is suspected of being undertaken.

The media presentation of this action is to suggest that this military action has been taken in order to destroy these abhorrent weapons, but isn't it possible that such action is just as likely to have been responsible for a massive release of said weapons into the local area?

Pot, kettle, black?

Eloise posted

'cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells, and at the end of the day any bomb used to target civilians is designed for one thing... to maim and kill!'

Despite the above axiom, it is important to note that the deployment of chemical weapons is different in one crucial way - they leave buildings and infrastructure intact. This makes their use in theory at least a favourable alternative to high explosives. Top military and politicians have long recognised this aspect of chemical weapons and hence the long standing international consensus that has endeavoured to suppress/ban their use in order to stop proliferation.

Ray

thebigfredc posted:

it is important to note that the deployment of chemical weapons is different in one crucial way - they leave buildings and infrastructure intact. This makes their use in theory at least a favourable alternative to high explosives. Top military and politicians have long recognised this aspect of chemical weapons and hence the long standing international consensus that has endeavoured to suppress/ban their use in order to stop proliferation.

And the people are dead anyway!  And that’s the thing, (at least to my mind) attacks like this are not about protecting anyone, they are about easing the political consciences.  It’s action taken without an end goal.

Of course when it’s been convinient for western powers to ignore the use of chemical weapons we have done.

We’ll have to agree to differ... and please don’t get me wrong, in no way should my criticism of the western response be seen as a defense of Russia or Syria.

I agree with the Allied response of France, the US and the UK.. the use of chemical weapons on civilians is a global outrage. Just look at  what happened in Salisbury, home of Naim, so imagine the effects on a sizeable population in a town without the resources that we have in the UK... absolutely appalling and it’s happenening.

Nothing is easy other than words when they are constantly ignored and then sometimes actions are required to support those words... and if that means removing chemical weapons silos and facilities in a combined international effort which have been used multiple times illegally to devastating affect in a way that has been used in an outrageous crime against humanity then it gets my vote... and hopefully sends a signal to others who are considering acting with impunity. Unfortunately we can’t uninvent chemical weapons.

I suspect we'll see the right wing Press trying to paint Corbyn as some sort of apologist for Russia etc but the PM chose to act without having a debate in the House of Commons so that rather leaves the leaders of all the opposition parties on the fringe of the matter where they aren't really in a position to give unqualified support. That was the PM's choice.

Personally I'm doubtful that this action will achieve much. I strongly suspect Russia was warned in advance so Russia will not feel threatened. Assad and his regime has demonstrated many times a willingness to be act in a barbarous way and won't be deterred by these sort of actions. The only action he would understand is if the US and others came out publicly and said 'we are coming after you and your henchmen'. That's not going to happen.  

The issue is that if the 'international community' does nothing, use of these weapons will become the norm once more.

The problem is how to achieve the necessary deterrence.

And don't think we are safe here in nice politically stable Europe.
Not so long ago in Catalunya a peaceful local democratic effort was brutally and violently suppressed by the National government.  Instead of either respecting the inevitability of local democracy or using the rule of law to nullify the result, they used para-military police to attack the local population whilst they were engaged in a peaceful action.

Like many people, I suspect, I'm conflicted about the latest allied action in Syria. I would prefer that there had been parliamentary debate, but this would have had the likely potential to result in what happened the last time round, in 2013, when the UK parliament voted against taking action in response to Assad's last substantive use of chemical weapons. It has been argued that this lack of resolve by allied forces has only emboldened Assad, especially since under Russia's military umbrella, he now feels that he can act with impunity. 

That having been said, I also doubt how effective this latest action will be. I do think that Corbyn is right in opposition to challenge the logic of government thinking, but he inevitably as a consequence going to be painted by the right wing media as a Russian stooge. That's just the tribal nature of the British media at work.

I suppose we in the west have accepted the fact that we have become global poleceman ready to stamp out any injustice around the world.  In one way its a noble brave gesture, be defender of the innocent and weak.  Yet it can also be a dangerous move, having to go into areas to stir up a 'hornest nest'.  I am all for action where needed as long as the doers have envisaged the probable bigger picture at the end.  Maybe I am being too naive and it all boils down to human nature and politics.

Corbyn will be painted as a stooge by the right wing press regardless of what he does.

Just take a look at the title of this thread.

Dozey posted:

Corbyn will be painted as a stooge by the right wing press regardless of what he does.

Just take a look at the title of this thread.

I think it should be blatantly obvious that all the painting has done by Corbyn himself. The man is an unreconstructed Communist whose associations and sympathies have been with some of the nastiest regimes and political organisations around the world.

Even when Putin carries out his second assassination attempt using both radioactive material and nerve agents, he is still in denial despite the sources of both those substances being tracked straight back to Russia and its military institutions. 

Remember any member of the public in Salisbury could easily have got a lethal dose of novochok and one policeman did get a very nasty sample. Corbyn is anti-West and am pretty sure he is anti-British as well.

I suspect the ground roots in the Labour feel that the holocoust is a Jewish conspiracy and we in the West are too quick to accuse Russia of wrong doing.  I respect the ground socialist beliefs of the Labour party, but their naive affection for Russia's communism, their respect for Lenin is looking at a situation with  rose tinted glasses.  A socialist party always makes good opposition but I dread a situation if Corbyn's party is to become Government sometime in the future.

Romi posted:

I suspect the ground roots in the Labour feel that the holocoust is a Jewish conspiracy 

Well, that’s pretty ridiculous, not to say incredibly insulting, if by ‘the ground roots in the Labour’ you mean ‘the grass roots of the Labour  Party’. I’d be more concerned about people with weird beliefs like that, than a Corbyn led Labour government.

Comrade Corbyn has been wholeheartedly and rightly disowned by his own Parliamentary Party during the debate over the bombing of the Russian and Syrian chemical facility.

And Corbyn's idea that we should have to go to the UN for approval for any action against such hideous regimes knowing full well that the Russians will wave two fingers and their veto thereby ensuring that any despot friendly with Russia could commit any atrocity with impunity.