Jump to content

Poisoned Russian spy.


Rab87

Recommended Posts

shaun.lawson
Just now, JamboX2 said:

Russia has historically - back to the USSR - backed Syria. It provides a naval base on the Mediterranean for the Russian navy. So it's again self interest by Russia more than Russia to the rescue.

 

That, plus the massive threat to their energy interests posed by Qatar's planned pipeline. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Victorian

    192

  • jake

    166

  • Jambo-Jimbo

    153

  • Space Mackerel

    151

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

35 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

The West lost the whole Arab Spring let alone Syria.

 

Time to accept Assad will be in power. But he needs brought to the table before his win turns into a purge. Seizing his party's foreign $5bn assets would be a start. Then move onto removing his chemical weapons capabilities.

 

Sadly I can't ever see a trial at the Hague ala the Break up of Yugoslavia here.

 

We lost the Arabs when the powers that be ignored Lawrence. 

 

Time to accept that our lot are shit, shittier than Assad, and have been for some considerable time. Maybe we shouldn't have sold him the chemicals required to make these weapons in the first place, but then again when you're shittier than Assad that's the sort of dumbass thing you would do. 

 

A trial at the Hague? We're still waiting to see Tony and George there are we not?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shaun.lawson
2 minutes ago, Sraman said:

 

We lost the Arabs when the powers that be ignored Lawrence. 

 

Time to accept that our lot are shit, shittier than Assad, and have been for some considerable time. Maybe we shouldn't have sold him the chemicals required to make these weapons in the first place, but then again when you're shittier than Assad that's the sort of dumbass thing you would do. 

 

A trial at the Hague? We're still waiting to see Tony and George there are we not?

 

 

 

By 'our lot', who do you mean?

 

And no, Tony and George should not be at The Hague. However much of an almighty, unforgiveable cluster**** Iraq was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

By 'our lot', who do you mean?

 

And no, Tony and George should not be at The Hague. However much of an almighty, unforgiveable cluster**** Iraq was.

 

Ah yes, no criminality here sunshine. Everything was above board, ship shape and Bristol fashion.

 

Who do you want me to mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shaun.lawson
4 minutes ago, Sraman said:

 

Ah yes, no criminality here sunshine. Everything was above board, ship shape and Bristol fashion.

 

Who do you want me to mean?

 

Those sent to the Hague are usually done so for committing genocide (which we didn't) or crimes against humanity (which we didn't). 

 

We launched a legal (yes, legal) war. Which we then made a disgraceful mess of, ****ing the country up completely, and doing ourselves, let alone the Iraqi people, untold harm. 

 

The only possible exception to the above is Fallujah. But way, way too much of the rhetoric around Iraq has always come from people who don't understand what any of international law, crimes against humanity or genocide even mean.

 

And again: who did you mean by 'our lot'? Please be specific. It's a simple question.

Edited by shaun.lawson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Findlay
8 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

I think the Russians have overstepped the mark. Massively. Their bombing has been indiscriminate and their obstruction on investigations over chemical weapons is a betrayal of the UN Charter. 

 

But this is a newly assertive Russia. Crimea, Georgia, murdered journalists, Ukraine, repression of opposition at home, the persecution of minorities and the LGBT community at home... so I dunno if I think it's great.

 

Russia has historically - back to the USSR - backed Syria. It provides a naval base on the Mediterranean for the Russian navy. So it's again self interest by Russia more than Russia to the rescue.

The Russians also have/had use of AlexandrIa port in Egypt. That is also on the Mediterranean and not to far from Port Said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambo-Jimbo
10 hours ago, Sraman said:

 

 

Why don't they wait for Assad to invite them in? Just like they waited until Teresa invited them to have a wee tour of Porton Down?

 

They are extremely busy doncha know? They don't have people waiting at the other end of a telephone ready to drop everything and go to wherever they are needed, or so I was told earlier in the thread.

 

Anyway, a quick summary of where we are:

 

Novichok is rubbish, it doesnae work.

 

Naebody knows what has been dropped on Syria apart from the people who dropped it.

 

Some daftie is waiting on a Dr. he has already discredited releasing his autopsy notes to prove or disprove what has or has not been dropped on Syria.

 

Even more dafties are still believing everything they are told by our Govt. and also think that our Prime Minister should have the right to be a dictator. Act first, discuss later. Yay Democracy!

 

 

 

Because the 2014 'Fact-Finding' mandate of the OPCW is still in force, meaning that they don't need to be invited in, obviously it is better if the OPCW has the cooperation of the Syrian Government and indeed requested on the 10 April for the Syrian Government to make the necessary arrangements for a team from the OPCW to be deployed. 

https://www.opcw.org/news/article/opcw-will-deploy-fact-finding-mission-to-douma-syria/

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambo-Jimbo

Remember at the week-end Sergei Lavrov claimed that the nerve agent used at Salisbury was not Novichok but BZ, a nerve agent which only the West had.

 

Mark Stone, Sky's Europe correspondent was at the meeting of the OPCW this morning and reported that this claim was discussed, anyway it seems that Mr. Lavrov was either being economical with the truth or didn't realise that he had gotten his facts not quite correct.

 

Apparently every lab is sent 3 samples, one of them being the unknown substance, one being a positive known sample and the final one being a negative sample, but the labs are unaware which sample is which, and the reason for that is if every lab then comes back with the same results on all 3 samples then that is conclusive proof what the unknown sample is.

 

Take a guess what the positive known sample which was sent to all the labs, yip it was BZ.

 

I find it difficult to believe that Mr. Lavrov wouldn't have known the test procedure before he came out with his BS statement on Saturday, therefore it makes you wonder why the Russians were so desperate to try and

muddy the waters by issuing what they must have known was a false and ill-informed statement and a statement which they also must have known was easily proved to be the BS it's apparently turned out to be.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Those sent to the Hague are usually done so for committing genocide (which we didn't) or crimes against humanity (which we didn't). 

 

We launched a legal (yes, legal) war. Which we then made a disgraceful mess of, ****ing the country up completely, and doing ourselves, let alone the Iraqi people, untold harm. 

 

The only possible exception to the above is Fallujah. But way, way too much of the rhetoric around Iraq has always come from people who don't understand what any of international law, crimes against humanity or genocide even mean.

 

And again: who did you mean by 'our lot'? Please be specific. It's a simple question.

 

 

No, I think you will find that they should be at the Hague although it isnae half handy having one of the permanent places, with two of the others being France & the US. The US has already ignored/vetoed judgements against them. The three, who just happen to be the ones that carried out the latest bombing raids in Syria, are allowed to act with impunity as their veto ensures that no-one acting under their instruction will be held to account.

 

As for crimes against humanity, I understand that at the present time "our lot" see Shia's and Black people with a Caribbean history as sub-human. Shia's have been openly on that list for quite a while but the Black people have just made it out into the open again after a sustained period of, relative, humanity. So, in their eyes, you are most likely correct that they see no crime committed against humanity.

 

I type this all whilst sitting in my wee hoose in Scotland, UK.  Any more silly questions requiring a silly answer??

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Because the 2014 'Fact-Finding' mandate of the OPCW is still in force, meaning that they don't need to be invited in, obviously it is better if the OPCW has the cooperation of the Syrian Government and indeed requested on the 10 April for the Syrian Government to make the necessary arrangements for a team from the OPCW to be deployed. 

https://www.opcw.org/news/article/opcw-will-deploy-fact-finding-mission-to-douma-syria/

 

 

 

 

The OPCW have a "fact finding" mandate? Wow, who'd've thunk it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shaun.lawson
21 minutes ago, Sraman said:

 

 

No, I think you will find that they should be at the Hague although it isnae half handy having one of the permanent places, with two of the others being France & the US. The US has already ignored/vetoed judgements against them. The three, who just happen to be the ones that carried out the latest bombing raids in Syria, are allowed to act with impunity as their veto ensures that no-one acting under their instruction will be held to account.

 

As for crimes against humanity, I understand that at the present time "our lot" see Shia's and Black people with a Caribbean history as sub-human. Shia's have been openly on that list for quite a while but the Black people have just made it out into the open again after a sustained period of, relative, humanity. So, in their eyes, you are most likely correct that they see no crime committed against humanity.

 

I type this all whilst sitting in my wee hoose in Scotland, UK.  Any more silly questions requiring a silly answer??

 

 

 

 

Waffle. All of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Waffle. All of it. 

 

 

Be specific. It's all quite simple really, isn't it?

 

Here's a wee thought for you. Now that the Tories have shot their bolt we could be looking at a Labour Govt after the next election. Now, as we know that "our lot" are the bastions of truth, you may not be allowed back into the country if this comes to pass. Pretty scary shit aint it? Now, that's waffle, something you seem to be extremely good at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Findlay
39 minutes ago, Sraman said:

 

 

Be specific. It's all quite simple really, isn't it?

 

Here's a wee thought for you. Now that the Tories have shot their bolt we could be looking at a Labour Govt after the next election. Now, as we know that "our lot" are the bastions of truth, you may not be allowed back into the country if this comes to pass. Pretty scary shit aint it? Now, that's waffle, something you seem to be extremely good at.

If Labour gain power after the next Genteral Election. Guess what? They will tell just as much lies as the Tories do. Why? It's called politics,  its what ALL politicians do, regardless of their perceived political persuasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shaun.lawson
1 hour ago, Sraman said:

 

 

Be specific. It's all quite simple really, isn't it?

 

Here's a wee thought for you. Now that the Tories have shot their bolt we could be looking at a Labour Govt after the next election. Now, as we know that "our lot" are the bastions of truth, you may not be allowed back into the country if this comes to pass. Pretty scary shit aint it? Now, that's waffle, something you seem to be extremely good at.

 

What is this gibberish? :cornette_dog:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambo-Jimbo
1 hour ago, John Findlay said:

If Labour gain power after the next Genteral Election. Guess what? They will tell just as much lies as the Tories do. Why? It's called politics,  its what ALL politicians do, regardless of their perceived political persuasion.

 

Exactly, the vast majority of them are all the same, they just wear different coloured rosettes, that's all that separates most of them.

Of course let's not forget that it was a Labour Prime Minister who told the biggest lie of all, WMD's anybody.

 

As has been mentioned, some folks are letting their political biases get in the way of rational thought.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shaun.lawson
3 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

Of course let's not forget that it was a Labour Prime Minister who told the biggest lie of all, WMD's anybody.

 

 

Opposed by much of Labour throughout his premiership for not being Labour. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambo-Jimbo
16 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Opposed by much of Labour throughout his premiership for not being Labour. 

 

True, but still the leader of the Labour party and a Labour Prime Minister.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert

On the original topic the latest I have read is that rain may have diluted the toxic nerve agent smeared on the door handle thus saving the intended victim. These Russian assassins think of everything don't they.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

On the original topic the latest I have read is that rain may have diluted the toxic nerve agent smeared on the door handle thus saving the intended victim. These Russian assassins think of everything don't they.

 

Putin will be raging that the British weather's rendered a military grade nerve agent useless. Victims can walk to the pub, go for a pizza - before it kicks in over an hour late . 

Worse than that,  a chemical eight times more powerful than VX , has been diluted so both victims recover, one with a weird side effect of acquiring a proper English dialect and not wanting to avail herself to the services of the Russian Embassy.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff the Mince
5 hours ago, felix said:

Putin will be raging that the British weather's rendered a military grade nerve agent useless. Victims can walk to the pub, go for a pizza - before it kicks in over an hour late . 

Worse than that,  a chemical eight times more powerful than VX , has been diluted so both victims recover, one with a weird side effect of acquiring a proper English dialect and not wanting to avail herself to the services of the Russian Embassy.

 

 

Look mate none of us know much (if anything) about nerve agents so stop trying to pretend you do  

 

And you really think she wants to hear from the Russian Embassy ? 

 

And i I don't really get this "proper English dialect" nonsense 

 

unless you knew how she spoke prior to the attack .

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambo-Jimbo
1 hour ago, Geoff the Mince said:

Look mate none of us know much (if anything) about nerve agents so stop trying to pretend you do  

 

And you really think she wants to hear from the Russian Embassy ? 

 

And i I don't really get this "proper English dialect" nonsense 

 

unless you knew how she spoke prior to the attack .

 

 

 

Considering she lived and worked in England for a number of years, it isn't really such a shock if she sounds English.

Different people lose their accents at different times, some sooner than others, some not at all. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff the Mince
5 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Considering she lived and worked in England for a number of years, it isn't really such a shock if she sounds English.

Different people lose their accents at different times, some sooner than others, some not at all. 

 

Exactly ;  he posts that her accent and dialect have changed since the attack . How the hell would he know  ! ! 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambo-Jimbo
51 minutes ago, Geoff the Mince said:

Exactly ;  he posts that her accent and dialect have changed since the attack . How the hell would he know  ! ! 

 

 

Hopefully there'll be a link of her talking in the weeks prior to the attack, then we can all compare what her voice sounded like, then and now.

If not, then like you say, unless anybody knows her personally then how would they know how her voiced sounded at any given time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Geoff the Mince said:

Look mate none of us know much (if anything) about nerve agents so stop trying to pretend you do  

And you really think she wants to hear from the Russian Embassy ? 

And I don't really get this "proper English dialect" nonsense 

unless you knew how she spoke prior to the attack .

 

 

We know about Novichoks - and how they work. So if in contact, you couldn't go for a pizza and a pint, before collapsing.

..and why wouldn't she want to hear from the Russian Embassy  ?  She's Russian !

On dialect - did you read her official statement ?...http://news.met.police.uk/news/statement-issued-on-behalf-of-yulia-skripal-302508   :mellow:

 

12 hours ago, Geoff the Mince said:

Exactly ;  he posts that her accent and dialect have changed since the attack . How the hell would he know  ! ! 

 

 

No; I posted about dialect. Accent and dialect are different.

 

11 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

Hopefully there'll be a link of her talking in the weeks prior to the attack, then we can all compare what her voice sounded like, then and now.

If not, then like you say, unless anybody knows her personally then how would they know how her voiced sounded at any given time.

 

See above. 

Back on topic.

Any further evidence of Novichoks - where they were administered and by who ?

Door handles.....Zizzis.....:mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shaun.lawson
20 minutes ago, felix said:

..and why wouldn't she want to hear from the Russian Embassy  ?  She's Russian !

On dialect - did you read her official statement ?...http://news.met.police.uk/news/statement-issued-on-behalf-of-yulia-skripal-302508   :mellow:

 

1. What is the problem with the statement issued on her behalf?

 

2. If someone tried to murder you and your father and almost succeeded, I take it you'd want to meet friends of the attempted murderer when they offered "support"? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

1. What is the problem with the statement issued on her behalf? 

2. If someone tried to murder you and your father and almost succeeded, I take it you'd want to meet friends of the attempted murderer when they offered "support"? 

1. It's not made by her.

2. How would she know it was the Russian state ? And if she did -  surely a more powerful statement would be offered,

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shaun.lawson
3 minutes ago, felix said:

1. It's not made by her.

2. How would she know it was the Russian state ? And if she did -  surely a more powerful statement would be offered,

 

 

1. So what? It's been issued on her behalf, as is entirely normal.

 

2. Oh for goodness' sake. Seriously. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/18/2018 at 16:05, John Findlay said:

If Labour gain power after the next Genteral Election. Guess what? They will tell just as much lies as the Tories do. Why? It's called politics,  its what ALL politicians do, regardless of their perceived political persuasion.

 

I didn't say they wouldn't. I just stated that, with our lot being the bastions of truth, if the anti semitic troubled Labour party gets in to the hot seat........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

 

Ah, more gibberish from the king of gibberish. In fact not just gibberish but patronising gibberish.

 

Nobody is backing Assad, as far as I can tell, we are all just sick and tired of being lied to by our own. If they have genuine reasons for the attack then go through the proper, Internationally agreed, channels and let us know what those reasons are so that we are more able to get behind them. 

 

What our lot have done (with this scenario) may not be as bad as Assad has done in the past but it absolutely reeks. 

 

I don't really care about Syria or Syrians in general as I don't know any. I do, however, care about here, and that is the crux of this whole affair to me. Arsehole politicians trying to be cute with their use of the English/Russian language to make things look worse than they actually are to justify their warmongering. It's ludicrous "that's not the way to kill your own people. Watch this. We'll show you how to kill your people." Batshit mental! Human rights abuses? "Haud oan a minute 'til we ask the Saudi's about that". More batshit mental!

 

The biggest threat to life in these isles, at this moment in time, comes from our own government who have the blood of thousands of British citizens (sounds a bit like old Bashar) on their hands, yet we are not allowed to bomb them. Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating any special type of nasty weapon to be used against them, the conventional kind will do just fine and that way we'd be keeping everything above board and legal. 

 

As I said, batshit mental. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

That article would hold some weight if we administered justice that wasn't political.

So what it says if the proof isn't there Assad is a bad man.

In essence.

 

I don't want to live in any Islamic country

I don't want to live under Putin.

I do not condone them.

 

I live in the UK and strive for better .

Because our forefathers fought for a more just society.

 

Not by the way given to us by the EU.

 

You don't half contradict yourself with your political dogma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sraman said:

 

 

Ah, more gibberish from the king of gibberish. In fact not just gibberish but patronising gibberish.

 

Nobody is backing Assad, as far as I can tell, we are all just sick and tired of being lied to by our own. If they have genuine reasons for the attack then go through the proper, Internationally agreed, channels and let us know what those reasons are so that we are more able to get behind them. 

 

What our lot have done (with this scenario) may not be as bad as Assad has done in the past but it absolutely reeks. 

 

I don't really care about Syria or Syrians in general as I don't know any. I do, however, care about here, and that is the crux of this whole affair to me. Arsehole politicians trying to be cute with their use of the English/Russian language to make things look worse than they actually are to justify their warmongering. It's ludicrous "that's not the way to kill your own people. Watch this. We'll show you how to kill your people." Batshit mental! Human rights abuses? "Haud oan a minute 'til we ask the Saudi's about that". More batshit mental!

 

The biggest threat to life in these isles, at this moment in time, comes from our own government who have the blood of thousands of British citizens (sounds a bit like old Bashar) on their hands, yet we are not allowed to bomb them. Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating any special type of nasty weapon to be used against them, the conventional kind will do just fine and that way we'd be keeping everything above board and legal. 

 

As I said, batshit mental. 

Well said.

 

I do find it laughable the moral high ground taken on ways to kill people.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jake said:

Well said.

 

I do find it laughable the moral high ground taken on ways to kill people.

 

 

His post is also way off topic to this thread.

 

OBFUSCATION!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sraman said:

 

His post is also way off topic to this thread.

 

OBFUSCATION!

I can't criticise him for that .

Think the thread has pulled in a few directions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

1. So what? It's been issued on her behalf, as is entirely normal.

 

2. Oh for goodness' sake. Seriously. 

Yes seriously. Think about it .

 

20 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

I don't see anyone on here defending Assad and saying he's a decent guy. The article claims "who cares" if he's used chemical weapons, he's  killed hundreds of Syrians.  Maybe so, but is the best way to deal with that, to make up stories and bomb hundreds more Syrians in pursuit of regime change  !?

The author would agree.  Mehdi Hasan's views on Saddam  and Iraq are well documented.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jake said:

 

 

I live in the UK and strive for better .

Because our forefathers fought for a more just society.

 

Well they bloody well lost if that's the case! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
2 minutes ago, Boris said:

Well they bloody well lost if that's the case! 

You mean things were better 70 years ago?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
10 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

You mean things were better 70 years ago?

And would have been worse today if our forefathers had not fought 70 years ago? Things are hugely better now. Poverty is relative and even the poor today are in general vastly better off than the poor were 70 years ago. In fact most of today's poor are  better off than most people were 70 years ago.

Edited by Francis Albert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, deesidejambo said:

You mean things were better 70 years ago?

No, not at all, but we are currently regressing. The fact Labour won a landslide in 1945, the welfare state was delivered, was indeed a victory. Yet the last forty years has been an ideological pogrom against those very ideals. A pyhric victory, perhaps? Given that there was a sense of unity which has been replaced by an alienated, indivualistic "society" that cares about themselves rather than the greater good. Otherwise why on earth would we have a tory government? As I've said earlier, the political narrative has facilitated this and its now almost at a point of no return. 

Except, of course, the more it goes on the more people will realise, Grenfell, Brexit, Windrush, what next? But do people have the courage to really change? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can remember 70 years ago with a reasonable degree of humour. Even the poorest people could afford on the NHS false teeth and glasses. There was the traditional Edinburgh bunnet, with the raincoat, and now a population with the exact same toothy smile and exact same glasses.  As kids we thought it was hilarious. There were still even some with those new prosthetics and still wearing their exact same as every other former serviceman demob suit. It was a new era when you didn't pay for a doctor, or dental or optical work. For people like my parents who lived in a you can have it if you can pay for it society, and if you cannot just do without, it was like paradise.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shaun.lawson
11 minutes ago, Boris said:

No, not at all, but we are currently regressing. The fact Labour won a landslide in 1945, the welfare state was delivered, was indeed a victory. Yet the last forty years has been an ideological pogrom against those very ideals.

 

Exactly. The 'golden age' was the postwar, Keynesian era of the welfare state, cheap housing, health and education for all. The "we're still just about OK age, more or less" ended in 2008. And since then? Neoliberalism and Greed Is Good have doubled down; division and nativism is rising across the West as a direct result. 

 

And we also, by and large, have a bubble. Of middle and upper class people brought up in comfortable families with many connections, whose university education and house was paid for by Mummy and Daddy, who went on into politics or the media and do not understand the impact of government policies on so many. This bubble re-enforces itself. That's why it comprehensively failed to predict any of the 2015 election result, Corbyn winning the Labour leadership, the referendum result, Trump, or Labour's resurgence last year. It's 0 for 5... and we still let it dictate our views and shape the agenda?

 

Good lord, the only reason the public are even aware of how extreme inter-generational inequality has become, how shamefully young people have been treated, is because of last year's election result. It'd been going on for many years, and most of the media and none of the Tories, Lib Dems or half of Labour had even mentioned it!

 

We'll shortly see if what Labour have to offer inspires enough people to vote for genuine social democracy. And in the longer term, the impact of mass automation is going to change politics and society, dramatically.

Edited by shaun.lawson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
8 minutes ago, Boris said:

No, not at all, but we are currently regressing. The fact Labour won a landslide in 1945, the welfare state was delivered, was indeed a victory. Yet the last forty years has been an ideological pogrom against those very ideals. A pyhric victory, perhaps? Given that there was a sense of unity which has been replaced by an alienated, indivualistic "society" that cares about themselves rather than the greater good. Otherwise why on earth would we have a tory government? As I've said earlier, the political narrative has facilitated this and its now almost at a point of no return. 

Except, of course, the more it goes on the more people will realise, Grenfell, Brexit, Windrush, what next? But do people have the courage to really change? 

Perhaps the Blair governments have something to do with why we have a tory government. And Corbyn has something to do with why that isn't going to change any time soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shaun.lawson
11 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Perhaps the Blair governments have something to do with why we have a tory government. And Corbyn has something to do with why that isn't going to change any time soon.

 

On the contrary.

 

1. Across Europe, social democracy has collapsed because it was the historic misfortune of social democratic governments to be in office at the time of the global crash... and hence, blamed for it.

 

2. Because there's no viable alternative to capitalism, this has left all those social democratic parties saying "vote for us, and it'll be... um... a bit less shit". Which is no offer at all.

 

3. No such chickenshit hesitancy from the centre-right and increasingly further right, which has traded on and encouraged nonsensical public blame of the centre-left, and performed its classic "look over there!" dead cat strategy (immigrants, welfare claimants, the disabled, New Labour, the EU) to distract the people from what's actually been going on. A centre-right and increasingly further right with an extremely powerful media owned by tax-dodging foreign oligarchs.

 

4. Prior to Corbyn, Labour was sunk. Utterly sunk. It stood for nothing and believed in nothing. It even thought it had to meet the public more than halfway on both austerity and welfare. And as a party, it was all but bankrupt too: at the very time Cameron tried to remove trade union funding.

 

Corbyn didn't become Labour leader and didn't record 41% of the vote last June because Labour members and much of the public have suddenly become raving marxists. The point is: so much of the public has been entirely disenfranchised from capitalism. Only he, through his authenticity, could have inspired so many people in such a way - and if he doesn't become Prime Minister, only a younger version of him with extremely similar ideas will. 

Edited by shaun.lawson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
11 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Exactly. The 'golden age' was the postwar, Keynesian era of the welfare state, cheap housing, health and education for all. The "we're still just about OK age, more or less" ended in 2008. And since then? Neoliberalism and Greed Is Good have doubled down; division and nativism is rising across the West as a direct result. 

 

And we also, by and large, have a bubble. Of middle and upper class people brought up in comfortable families with many connections, whose university education and house was paid for by Mummy and Daddy, who went on into politics or the media and do not understand the impact of government policies on so many. This bubble re-enforces itself. That's why it comprehensively failed to predict any of the 2015 election result, Corbyn winning the Labour leadership, the referendum result, Trump, or Labour's resurgence last year. It's 0 for 5... and we still let it dictate our views and shape the agenda?

 

Good lord, the only reason the public are even aware of how extreme inter-generational inequality has become, how shamefully young people have been treated, is because of last year's election result. It'd been going on for many years, and most of the media and none of the Tories, Lib Dems or half of Labour had even mentioned it!

 

We'll shortly see if what Labour have to offer inspires enough people to vote for genuine social democracy. And in the longer term, the impact of mass automation is going to change politics and society, dramatically.

"Extreme intergenerational inequality"? One of the great myths of our age. All those young people who can't spend hundreds of pounds a year on updating their phones. Or in fact who can and do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
5 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

On the contrary.

 

1. Across Europe, social democracy has collapsed because it was the historic misfortune of social democratic governments to be in office at the time of the global crash... and hence, blamed for it.

 

2. Because there's no viable alternative to capitalism, this has left all those social democratic parties saying "vote for us, and it'll be... um... a bit less shit". Which is no offer at all.

 

3. No such chickenshit hesitancy from the centre-right and increasingly further right, which has traded on and encouraged nonsensical public blame of the centre-left, and performed its classic "look over there!" dead cat strategy (immigrants, welfare claimants, the disabled, New Labour, the EU) to distract the people from what's actually been going on. A centre-right and increasingly further right with an extremely powerful media owned by tax-dodging foreign oligarchs.

 

4. Prior to Corbyn, Labour was sunk. Utterly sunk. It stood for nothing and believed in nothing. It even thought it had to meet the public more than halfway on both austerity and welfare. And as a party, it was all but bankrupt too: at the very time Cameron tried to remove trade union funding.

 

Corbyn didn't become Labour leader and didn't record 41% of the vote last June because Labour members and much of the public have suddenly become raving marxists. The point is: so much of the public has been entirely disenfranchised from capitalism. Only he, through his authenticity, could have inspired so many people in such a way - and if he doesn't become Prime Minister, only a younger version of him with extremely similar ideas will. 

Corbyn's "authenticity"? You have to be joking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

On the contrary.

 

1. Across Europe, social democracy has collapsed because it was the historic misfortune of social democratic governments to be in office at the time of the global crash... and hence, blamed for it.

 

2. Because there's no viable alternative to capitalism, this has left all those social democratic parties saying "vote for us, and it'll be... um... a bit less shit". Which is no offer at all.

 

3. No such chickenshit hesitancy from the centre-right and further right, which has traded on and encouraged nonsensical public blame of the centre-left, and performed its classic "look over there!" dead cat strategy (immigrants, welfare claimants, the disabled, New Labour, the EU) to distract the people from what's actually been going on. A centre-right with an extremely powerful media owned by tax-dodging foreign oligarchs.

 

4. Prior to Corbyn, Labour was sunk. Utterly sunk. It stood for nothing and believed in nothing. It even thought it had to meet the public more than halfway on both austerity and welfare. And as a party, it was all but bankrupt too: at the very time Cameron tried to remove trade union funding.

 

Corbyn didn't become Labour leader and didn't record 41% of the vote last June because Labour members and much of the public have suddenly become raving marxists. The point is: so much of the public has been entirely disenfranchised from capitalism. Only he, through his authenticity, could have inspired so many people in such a way - and if he doesn't become Prime Minister, only a younger version of him with extremely similar ideas will. 

 

On point 4.    Precisely right re Corbyn but people (many in the Labour Party) can't see past the image of him that they've been spoon fed.    Only a continuation of his work will maintain Labour's progress.    Corbyn has all the authenticity but is unlikely to break through the wall of ignorance of what authentic politics can bring.

 

The pioneers get the arrows.    The settlers get the gold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...