Tory Monopoly (2 Viewers)

Grendel said:

100% agree with all of that.

It's interesting the media compares this pipsqueak to Atlee and Bevan. Both were fierce Patriots and would have recoiled in horror at how the welfare state now supports a lifestyle choice and has created an underclass.

Click to expand...

I believe excessive welfare actually creates the underclass.

Time to move on - they did

Grendel said:

Mandela was a terrorist due to a racial policy that is not acceptable in society.

The likes of Adams and his thug in arms mcguiness are just murderers whose only cause was to inflict pain and misery. Peace was and always will be bottom of their agenda.

Click to expand...

You really don't have a clue what you're on about. For all their faults and who knows what blood they have on their hands when an olive branch was handed they took it at the first time of asking. That's not the actions of men who's only interest was to inflict pain and misery and I say that as someone who's family is from the opposite "side" to them. Whatever they were a part of they deserve credit for the roll they've played in bringing piece, hope and prosperity to Northern Ireland. It couldn't have happened without them but I guarantee you that the troubles would have happened with or without their involvement.

Monners said:

Time to move on - they did

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Grendel said:

Mandela was a terrorist due to a racial policy that is not acceptable in society.

The likes of Adams and his thug in arms mcguiness are just murderers whose only cause was to inflict pain and misery. Peace was and always will be bottom of their agenda.

Click to expand...

You don't think there was (and in some circles still is) a sectarian policy that was not acceptable in society in Pre-GFY Agreement Norn Iron?

David Trimble himself stated that Stormont was 'a cold house for Catholics' before direct Westminster rule was implemented.

By happy coincidence for those that which to indulge themselves

http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/n...ira-former-northamptonshire-soldier-1-6872924

Grendel said:

"For all their faults" is a very dangerous and appeasing statement.

What you are effectively saying is that you legitimise violence and gun law when the ballot box fails. Democracy doesn't provide the answer so look elsewhere. Drag mothers from their beds in the night and blow their heads off on a beach for offering assistance to a wounded soldier. Murder men, women and children when out enjoying themselves. This democratic oppression is the same argument the Islam terrorists follow so I assume you also sympathise with them and "ourselves alone". At least you empathise with them.

I don't.

Click to expand...

Clearly you never went to Northern Ireland in the troubles. It was ugly. On all sides. Atrocities were committed by all sides I assure you of that. The only other place I've been in the world where I've felt anywhere near the same atmosphere is the West Bank in Israel. It doesn't feel like that any longer. You can cross the border freely, there's not an army checkpoint around every corner, I can remember heading back to the ferry one summer as a kid and we couldn't stop at traffic lights going through Belfast and when we were safely on board the ferry everyone on board was on the decks watching Belfast burn. That's something that you cannot envisage happening again when you go there. Like I said before, that change wouldn't have happened without McGuinness and Adams the troubles would have happened without their involvement. You can remain ignorant to that but they are the fact's. It a great place to go, you can walk the walls of Derry again, visit historical Belfast and enjoy the beautiful countryside all with a welcome. Not something I could have said as a kid.

Grendel said:

So you'd side with Hammas then if the West Bank became a tourist attraction and a nice place to be?

You are totally missing the point.

Click to expand...

No I'm not. You're not making a point.

I'm talking from a personal prospective of someone who has witnessed the troubles first hand. I have family members who have been targeted by the IRA because they were members of the police force but because I've seen it in the cold daylight I understand how people like McGuinness and Adams came to be, because I can see that I can also see what a brave and unexpected step it was to take the olive branch when John Major handed it too them. That took not only guts on their behalf but also a desire for piece. Of which they were major players in delivering. You might not like them, I'm not even sure I do but I'm not ignorant to what they have achieved when the guns were put down and diplomacy began.

You do know that the world isn't black and white don't you?

Grendel said:

So do you sympathise with Hammas and also the oppressed terrorists who felt compelled to bomb London on July 7?

Click to expand...

I sympathise with the people of Palestine, or what's left of it. I understand how given their circumstances young men from Gaza and the West Bank feel compelled to join Hamas however misguided that decision maybe. They're not exactly blessed with opportunity to get out of the situation they're in by the accident of where they're born. As I said in an earlier post I've been to the West Bank and it's a Ghetto in the real sense of the word and the world should never have let it happen. It's easy to see how they fall into the trap of thinking the actions of Hamas is a way out. The way it can mirror Northern Ireland for Catholics in the 60's and 70's are obvious. Living in tenement blocks while the protestant population took the pick of new council houses, being blocked from free employment, segregation etc. etc.

Grendel said:

Terrorism is a good strategy. It identifies weakness and it shows no mercy. It's ruthless relentless and its against all ideals of civility and democracy. It destabilises society through fear and creates instability.

It's anarchy.

You support the method as a way of effecting change or you don't.

I repeat that I don't.

You either do or you don't and you can't be selective even if you applaud one specific outcome.

Click to expand...

I dont think he's said anywhere that he supports terrorism?

Grendel said:

Terrorism is a good strategy. It identifies weakness and it shows no mercy. It's ruthless relentless and its against all ideals of civility and democracy. It destabilises society through fear and creates instability.

It's anarchy.

You support the method as a way of effecting change or you don't.

I repeat that I don't.

You either do or you don't and you can't be selective even if you applaud one specific outcome.

Click to expand...

Terrorism can take many forms.

Ruling by fear is one! Like every Government in the world does.

Some forms of terrorism are just more subtle/extreme (take your pick) than others in their apporach.

...onwards & upwards PUSB

Grendel said:

Terrorism is a good strategy. It identifies weakness and it shows no mercy. It's ruthless relentless and its against all ideals of civility and democracy. It destabilises society through fear and creates instability.

It's anarchy.

You support the method as a way of effecting change or you don't.

I repeat that I don't.

You either do or you don't and you can't be selective even if you applaud one specific outcome.

Click to expand...

You really are full of yourself aren't you? You see yourself as judge, jury and executioner. I have never once said I support an act of terrorism. All I have pointed out is that if you want to understand how to stop terrorism you have to understand how and why it came about in the first place and then address this through dialogue. Only this process led to the good Friday agreement and has lead to piece in a part of the world that I not only love is also home to almost all my family and I'm happy that has been achieved.

You're trying to turn that around into somehow I support terrorism. I don't. I support the piece that follows when individuals have the courage to put down the gun and enter into dialogue. Northern Ireland has provided a blue print of how to end terrorism and give hope to generations who had never had it before and never expected to see it in their lifetime. I know these people, they're my family.

chiefdave said:

We need to stop this obsession with everyone going to university. There's too many people doing degrees that have zero chance of leading to a job. It can't be that hard to work out how many graduates need to be recruited every year and in what fields. That should roughly equate to the number of places available.

If you did that it becomes more feasible to cover the cost of education or have students sponsored by bigger companies on the promise of going to work for them when they graduate.

Click to expand...

Just to clarify what obsession are we talking? Paying fees or people wanting to go to university?

Are you saying that we should pay fees but limit the number of people going to university?

I don't think that is the answer. People should have the right to attend university in whatever course they choose. I don't see the problem with paying for it yourself? I was fortunate enough to have my company pay for my degree, but I would have paid for it myself if they hadn't. If people choose to go to university and get a degree in something which is too obscure or competitive to offer reasonable job opportunities afterwards then that is their own doing.

Grendel said:

Terrorism is a good strategy. It identifies weakness and it shows no mercy. It's ruthless relentless and its against all ideals of civility and democracy. It destabilises society through fear and creates instability.

It's anarchy.

You support the method as a way of effecting change or you don't.

I repeat that I don't.

You either do or you don't and you can't be selective even if you applaud one specific outcome.

Click to expand...

To take the specific example of Israel & Hammas it is perfectly acceptable to feel sympathy towards the people in the west bank, and feel that what both Hammas and Israel are doing is wrong.

torchomatic said:

I'm a lone voice here, I know, but I actually think he will be the best thing to happen to the Labour Party. To be honest the Tories are going to be in for years now anyway regardless of who is Labour leader. I'd rather not have a closet Tory wearing a red tie running the party like Burnham or the rest of them.

Since Blair the line between the Tories and the Labour party have become too blurred for my liking. JC will at least fight for his corner and for the corner of the working people of the country, rather than just rattling Cameron's cage in PMQs before voting for all his policies.

Click to expand...

Yes I can see your point. He would offer a very different alternative to the tories, as oppose to vote red instead of blue. The only issue with that is in my opinion, it will not win an election ever again. The country is very different now to what it was before. The old working class is now the "benefit" class, and the working class is just shy of the middle class in real terms.

Whilst I agree, the people who are in need do deserve as much help as they can get, it is not viable unfortunately. You tax the rich to pay the poor and the economy will crash. Large companies would move, creating more unemployment, and more benefits. Where do you go then? Tax the rich more? The root to succeeding is the economy, and that vicious circle starts at the top.

lewys33 said:

Just to clarify what obsession are we talking? Paying fees or people wanting to go to university?

Click to expand...

Bit of both really. For a while now there seems to have been a push to get everyone to go to Uni yet there aren't enough graduate positions at the other end. The huge increase in numbers is, at least partially, why it is no longer free.

I would suggest that if, for example, we need 10,000 graduate engineers a year the companies who require them cover the cost of the degree.

Of course if someone still wants to do a nonsense degree that won't improve their employability they should be free to do so if they cover the cost themselves but I wouldn't allow them to defer repayments on any loans if they don't get a high paying graduate position upon leaving.

chiefdave said:

Bit of both really. For a while now there seems to have been a push to get everyone to go to Uni yet there aren't enough graduate positions at the other end. The huge increase in numbers is, at least partially, why it is no longer free.

I would suggest that if, for example, we need 10,000 graduate engineers a year the companies who require them cover the cost of the degree.

Of course if someone still wants to do a nonsense degree that won't improve their employability they should be free to do so if they cover the cost themselves but I wouldn't allow them to defer repayments on any loans if they don't get a high paying graduate position upon leaving.

Click to expand...

I see what you are saying, but that would be a very long-winded and painful process to organise. As simple as it sounds I don't think it would work. You then cross the ground of if it is actually cost-effective to employ the people to create and do that process, as oppose to keeping the current system.

chiefdave said:

Of course if someone still wants to do a nonsense degree that won't improve their employability.

Click to expand...

Some of those 'nonsense degrees' challenge a taken-for-granted ideology that puts everything in its place and imposes a way of seeing the world where the great God of finance rules above all else.

You can still contribute to society and improve your contribution to society without making a metal tube, or without aspiring to earn £50k a year.

And you can still take out critical skills that can be useful in other fields.

If your disposition is to modernism rather than metallurgy, you should be encouraged to do the best you can... especially as it wasn't that long ago the former would have had a higher cultural cachet.

We're getting close to fundamentalism to turn around and say culture and learning for learning's sake are not worthwhile, close to killing the academics as a threat to the dictatorship.

That's not what I'm saying through NW.

Take, for example, something like music management. The whole industry functioned perfectly well for decades without degree courses. People would learn on the job as it was something they had a passion for and work their way up. Now the number of graduates outweighs the number of available positions by thousands to one.

The result is there are now far less jobs in the industry available as many positions which were formerly full time salaried positions are now staffed by a never ending rotation of unpaid interns. So you've got thousands of people with a degree that's pretty much useless and tens of thousands of debt.

The problem isn't the types of degree courses on offer, the problem is turning universities into capitalist institutions.

In fact, it's said transformation that encourages over-supply as it encourages universities to accept people who maybe need a year or two longer to mature before doing a degree, or who might be better suited to something else (just wth is wrong with being a plumber if that's what you want to be! Why *should* you be told you have to go to university?).

Once they're there, universities are then paid in part according to completion rates so students who should, for their own sake (and for their own life chances too), be gently eased out keep getting chance after chance, devaluing the degrees of those who are more disposed towards it.

It also, incidentally, encourages an arts degree ahead of certain other degrees as the cost can potentially be far far lower - no need for specialist equipment or labs, just hire an overworked goon and set them at it.

If, however, universities were centrally funded then it could value all degrees equally, and people could get in (and drop out) on their merits... and assessment of those merits could be made on more than just financial criteria.

Something radical has to happen as with our voting system and the fact its no longer a two party race even without Labours current implosion being anything but a one party state is unlikely. Would need a massive rejection of the SNP in Scotland.

Maybe Corbyn's inevitable win will lead to a shake up, rather directly or indirectly. The non-voters could come into play. If a large chunk of the 22m who didn't vote weren't voting as all the realistic options were pretty much the same they might be attracted to something different. With a majority of under 2m if Labour could mobilise the non-voters they'd have a chance.

The other possibility is that with the Lib Dems having imploded if Labour follow them will someone else step up to fill the void? Don't think it would be the Greens unless they rebrand and sorted their PR. Could the SNP expand into England, or have a partner English Party?

The other candidates might have been better off showing they were up to the job rather than having a go at Corbyn. Most people would struggle to tell you what the other candidates stand for. Think wheeling Blair and Brown out has been a mistake as well.

I believe that if labour and Lib dems fade away then rather than a one party state we will see the Tories split (another 5-10yrs down the line) into the far right nationalist wing and the more old style one nation Tory wing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Grendel said:

He should have been more like himself in office and may have retained power.

Click to expand...

I'll ignore the empty rhetoric and focus on this that yes indeed. Why a strong minded conviction led politician like Brown let himself be sweetened and moulded, I will never know.

chiefdave said:

The other candidates might have been better off showing they were up to the job rather than having a go at Corbyn. Most people would struggle to tell you what the other candidates stand for.

Click to expand...

This indeed. There's only one who I can make a stab at what their policies actually are, and it's the subject of this thread.

Grendel said:

You clearly are a left of centre political supporter. So what's your view? You must know really as well as I do that electing Corbyn is a car crash for democracy.

Click to expand...

Let's deal with the policies.

Well, firstly let's deal with the way this election has been conducted. I resent the implication nobody but morons and Tory supporters seeking to sabotage the election would vote for somebody in the Labour Party who supports the Labour movement. This from the start makes the whole thing seem like an attempted stitch-up by a political elite that has maybe gone wrong; it also shows an unwillingness from the other candidates to even entertain the thought that there is an underbelly of disenfranchised Labour sympathisers that they might want to reconvert to Labour voters.

Let's also deal with the 'centre'. Somebody (I forget who) said quite correctly in my view that you don't aim for the centre, you aim to bring the centre towards you. For better or worse, that was Thatcher's achievement - she managed through force of personality to move the centre ground more right than it had been... so much so that it's arguable Ted Heath was more left wing than Kendall (who, incidentally, is no credible alternative - she should be in the Tory Party!).

I resent the negative campaigning of Corbyn's rivals, who focus on his failings rather than their successes and future strategies. It's a microcosm of the ya boo of Westminster, where it's hard to know what a party actually stands *for* until it ends up having to implement its policies in government.

Now, onto Corbyn. Who has at least focussed on what he stands for. He will, ultimately, stand or fall on that, and that's admirable.

Of his policies, I have no problem with putting the means of production back in the hands of the workers, I have no problem with tax rises to pay for public spending. I also have little issue with an attempt to rebalance the political equilibrium. It's time for people to be offered a choice come an election rather than red and blue sides of the same coin.

I do have an issue with his quantitative easing for public works. This does seem slightly dangerous, and could generate rather extreme inflationary and debt pressures. I'd certainly like him to look at that again, or at least give more justification as to how that might work.

As for the man... I am not convinced he has the force of personality, like Thatcher, like Wilson, to move the centre ground towards him. This, ultimately, is the issue. The irony is that his rivals give him the prominance by focussing on him, and not themselves.

When it was Blair and Corbyn's rivals throwng the brickbats, then I dismiss them with scorn. Brown, however, I credit with being a rather deeper thinker, and to the left of them anyway. He maybe makes me pause for thought more. (the irony is, Brown at his pomp probably did have the force of personality to move the political ground. That he lost this opportunity is his biggest failing)

But, the more I am told only idiots would vote for Corbyn, the more I wish I had registered to vote for. The sad thing would be if another member won this election and attempted to repress the left of the party again. There is a place for certain left leaning policies to work in a state, there is certainly a place for left leaning policies to be heard in the Labour Party!

My membership card states:

"The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few.Where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect."

Going by that it looks like three of the candidates shouldn't be standingm anyway, the only one who seems to have any inkling what the Labour Party is, or rather, should, be about is Jeremy Corbyn, which is where my vote is going.

The only thing likely to destroy the Labour Party is the PLP, with idiots such as Danzcuk already talking about a coup if Corbyn wins.

Grendel said:

Actually NW you are clearly a bright chap and have a political interest.

You clearly are a left of centre political supporter. So what's your view? You must know really as well as I do that electing Corbyn is a car crash for democracy.

Kendall or Cooper would present a serious alternative.

Corbyn is a disaster and has many skeletons in the closet. He will be mincemeat at PMQ.

This is 1982 all over again.

Click to expand...

If Corbyn was bad for the Labour Party the overwhelmingly right-wing press would not be complaining about him as loudly as they are.

It was Brown and Miliband who were a disaster for the Labour Party and there is every reason to think their preferred successor would be too.