Don't vote Tory

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, clarkete said:

For refugees and weapon sales, we  sell tonnes to Saudi Arabia who bomb civilians in Yemen. 

They bomb civilians for the fun of it? Or is it about something else?

I'm giving nothing of my support to what Saudi are doing, but neither am I giving any support to your warped version of what they're doing either. Civilians would be dying - were dying - in Yemen before the Saudi's involvement.

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, clarkete said:

Not perfection personified but a "true friend". 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/oct/06/pinochet.chile

As was Stalin in WW2. That doesn't get to mean that everything that person might do is approved of - which still has it on a different plane to Corbyn's words about Chavez.

Meanwhile politics is by necessity a dirty business, unless you take the North Korea route of shutting yourself off from the dirt of the rest of the world.

[clarkete]

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

As was Stalin in WW2. That doesn't get to mean that everything that person might do is approved of - which still has it on a different plane to Corbyn's words about Chavez.

Meanwhile politics is by necessity a dirty business, unless you take the North Korea route of shutting yourself off from the dirt of the rest of the world.

Indeed Corbyn's words were different, Pinochet's actions were considerably worse to. 

14 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Civilians would be dying - were dying - in Yemen before the Saudi's involvement.

Did you look at the article? 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, clarkete said:

Indeed Corbyn's words were different, Pinochet's actions were considerably worse to. 

I don't disagree, but no one has proposed a Pinochet solution for the UK.

 

2 minutes ago, clarkete said:

Did you look at the article? 

Yep.  Do you think I'd learn anything from it that I didn't already know?

What's your angle of attack here? What do you wrongly think I'm defending?

[SallyFaulknerStantonWarrio]

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

And that shift in ideology is...? Essentially it's nothing more than everything is available and for free, and nothing of getting everything for free can negatively impact 95% of the population.

If you were a debating man, we could debate that and talk about how realistic that is, using facts as the benchmark. Wanna give it a go?

 

I'll take you up on that Neil. Yeah I reckon the stuff in the Labour manifesto is realistic, based on there being a lot of other places with higher marginal tax rates and higher spending on health, education etc (to summarize). 

[clarkete]

36 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

What's your angle of attack here? What do you wrongly think I'm defending?

I'm not trying to attack,  @zahidf mentioned refugees and our Government's responsibility, to which you replied specifically about Syria.  I was pointing out that we sell lots of weapons that create refugees, hence I highlighted Yemen and Saudi Arabia. 

I think you agree, you just never like to say that, to anyone ever 

[eFestivals]

30 minutes ago, SallyFaulknerStantonWarrio said:

I'll take you up on that Neil. Yeah I reckon the stuff in the Labour manifesto is realistic, based on there being a lot of other places with higher marginal tax rates and higher spending on health, education etc (to summarize). 

ok. Want to tell me how the proposed 'tobin tax' will bring in the claimed revenues?

Cos I can point to one of the few places which has introduced a 'financial transaction tax' - Sweden - and can point out that it was (overall) revenue neutral in it's first year, before decimating 50% of Sweden's financial business (that moved overseas) and causing a big loss of tax revenues.

And I say that as a big big supporter of a tobin tax because killing speculation (or at least some it) would be a fantastic thing, but its not the miracle income stream that the manifesto claims.

But even if it were, there's no accounting in the manifesto for the reduction in transactions it would cause nor for the effect on the profits - and so tax - of the businesses that would be impacted by it.

PS: those places with higher tax rates aren't giving 15% of workers a no-tax rate nor charging the majority just 20% on their incomes, either.

Edited May 23, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

16 minutes ago, clarkete said:

I'm not trying to attack,  @zahidf mentioned refugees and our Government's responsibility, to which you replied specifically about Syria.  I was pointing out that we sell lots of weapons that create refugees, hence I highlighted Yemen and Saudi Arabia. 

I think you agree, you just never like to say that, to anyone ever 

Nope. Guns don't kill people, rappers (:P) people do.
(that's a line I dislike when used for guns within the general population - tho one that stands more-true for govts).

So unless the UK stopping selling weapons stops those who want weapons from getting weapons, it can't be linked back in the direct way you're saying it.

To be clear: that's not me saying that we should keep on selling those weapons, it's me saying that the selling of those weapons isn't the cause of what you highlight.

And for Syria, the weapon's we've provided into that conflict have been used to fight back, and not to initiate the slaughter - and I'm no more comfortable with leaving people to die as I am in providing the weapons which might kill them (and i say that as someone who's for a long time thought that an Assad victory will cause the least slaughter).

If stopping war was as easy as your line there suggests humanity would have cracked it eons ago.

Edited May 23, 2017 by eFestivals

[clarkete]

48 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Nope. Guns don't kill people, rappers (:P) people do.
(that's a line I dislike when used for guns within the general population - tho one that stands more-true for govts).

So unless the UK stopping selling weapons stops those who want weapons from getting weapons, it can't be linked back in the direct way you're saying it.

To be clear: that's not me saying that we should keep on selling those weapons, it's me saying that the selling of those weapons isn't the cause of what you highlight.

And for Syria, the weapon's we've provided into that conflict have been used to fight back, and not to initiate the slaughter - and I'm no more comfortable with leaving people to die as I am in providing the weapons which might kill them (and i say that as someone who's for a long time thought that an Assad victory will cause the least slaughter).

If stopping war was as easy as your line there suggests humanity would have cracked it eons ago.

I was mistaken.  You didn't learn anything from the article.  Put your tory blinkers back on

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, clarkete said:

I was mistaken.  You didn't learn anything from the article.  Put your tory blinkers back on

the UK stopping selling would stop all war?

You're inventing something somewhere.

Edited May 23, 2017 by eFestivals

[clarkete]

Sorry getting a bit impassioned, calling you a tory is too far even for a rude bastard like me.  

What we do with arms sales should be subject to further scrutiny and we do get footage on newsnight etc of the grim repercussions on Yemen. 

To illustrate how we differ from our eu neighbours:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2017-04-24/71798

 

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2017-04-24/71795

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, clarkete said:

To illustrate how we differ from our eu neighbours:

yep. EU neighbours who never had particularly big war industries (bar Germany, tho that got rather spoiled a while back) from which to lose valuable jobs and inward money from by turning away from it - and from which there's no better moral outcome from, because they'll still get weapons elsewhere.

I'm not saying that to defend it, but I am saying that to point out that 'simple' thing of ending arms sales to (say) Saudi stops being simple as soon as you start to think it thru.

Edited May 23, 2017 by eFestivals

[clarkete]

27 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

yep. EU neighbours who never had particularly big war industries (bar Germany, tho that got rather spoiled a while back) from which to lose valuable jobs and inward money from by turning away from it - and from which there's no better moral outcome from, because they'll still get weapons elsewhere.

I'm not saying that to defend it, but I am saying that to point out that 'simple' thing of ending arms sales to (say) Saudi stops being simple as soon as you start to think it thru.

Agreed it's not simple in the slightest:-
1.  the grauniad piece referred to us working hard to increase our sales to the regimes that have some of the most questionable human rights records

2.  It shows that even though they have smaller industries and without knowing their totals, the EU countries are being selective about the orders they agree to, when compared to us

3.  To go back to the original point, I agree with zahidf that our moral obligation is especially clear where we have a (hugely profitable) hand in how those poor folks became refugees

 

On a broader note, you're a fine bloke, I know you've made lots of moral choices about how you live your life, as we all do.  I just would like to have a government that do that too.

Edited May 23, 2017 by clarkete

[waterfalls212434]

Can I ask something here? is there literally anything anybody can post here that neil actually agrees with? that he doesn't mock or try and talk down? I heard someone call you devils advocate earlier mate and I have to say they were spot on, you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing a lot of the time.....end of the day enough bullshit.....the election is between the tories and labour that is clear, noone else has a prayer......they've both announced their manifestos, they both have clear agendas, one public spirited and about helping the majority, one about helping the minority and keep those on top on top at the expense of a lot of other people.....pick a side!

for all you can say about corbyn for example there is no fucking way you can tell me that that man and labour are a worse option then Theresa may and the Tory party!

So why do I never.....ever...and I mean ever see you slating the tory party neil? because it doesn't create a hot enough response? 

Edited May 23, 2017 by waterfalls212434

[mcshed]

10 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

Can I ask something here? is there literally anything anybody can post here that neil actually agrees with? that he doesn't mock or try and talk down? I heard someone call you devils advocate earlier mate and I have to say they were spot on, you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing a lot of the time.....end of the day enough bullshit.....the election is between the tories and labour that is clear, noone else has a prayer......they've both announced their manifestos, they both have clear agendas, one public spirited and about helping the majority, one about helping the minority and keep those on top on top at the expense of a lot of other people.....pick a side!

for all you can say about corbyn for example there is no fucking way you can tell me that that man and labour are a worse option then Theresa may and the Tory party!

So why do I never.....ever...and I mean ever see you slating the tory party neil? because it doesn't create a hot enough response? 

I really don't think Neil manufactures opinions to drive traffic I think he's just a bit of a contrarian who enjoys challenging people's beliefs.  If it irritates you so much just ignore him.

[clarkete]

1 minute ago, mcshed said:

 I think he's just a bit of a contrarian 

Oh no he isn't! 

[waterfalls212434]

1 minute ago, mcshed said:

I really don't think Neil manufactures opinions to drive traffic I think he's just a bit of a contrarian who enjoys challenging people's beliefs.  If it irritates you so much just ignore him.

Oh it doesn't irritate me I just think its quite obvious whats going on here.....and if it was about challenging people it wouldn't be as one sided...ive seen a few tory fans posting here trying to defend that stance....why hasnt he `challenged` them?....its about saying controversial shit and arguing for the sake of arguing to keep a thread hot.

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

Oh it doesn't irritate me I just think its quite obvious whats going on here.....and if it was about challenging people it wouldn't be as one sided...ive seen a few tory fans posting here trying to defend that stance....why hasnt he `challenged` them?....its about saying controversial shit and arguing for the sake of arguing to keep a thread hot.

why haven't you challenged them? Why have you instead decided to attack me and not discuss what I've said? And you say I have an agenda? :P

And if I have an agenda I'd say it's more likely I'm just an argumentative bastard, or that I care more for the success of socialism than to think promising the world on a stick and for free is something that progresses it. Take your pick.

 

[waterfalls212434]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

why haven't you challenged them? Why have you instead decided to attack me and not discuss what I've said? And you say I have an agenda?

And if I have an agenda I'd say it's more likely I'm just an argumentative bastard, or that I care more for the success of socialism than to think promising the world on a stick and for free is something that progresses it. Take your pick.

 

I have challenged them if you care to read back? 

argumentative bastard id agree with, going by this thread and others ive seen Im thinking if I said the earth was round youd try and produce facts and figures to say otherwise.....I dont know why Id think youd care about the success of socialism because you spend more time slagging those trying to bring such an ideology to pass off for doing so, you think the way to do things is to be so fucking negative all the time? what does that accomplish? corbyn could win this election and follow through on every single policy in that manifesto and youd still slag him off......because thats what people like you do. You know what im not even getting sucked into this, espcially not in the fragile mood im in today, keep your negative doomsayer vibes away from me, some of us maintain a little hope for how things are progressing.

Edited May 23, 2017 by waterfalls212434

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

I have challenged them if you care to read back? 

argumentative bastard id agree with, going by this thread and others ive seen Im thinking if I said the earth was round youd try and produce facts and figures to say otherwise.....I dont know why Id think youd care about the success of socialism because you spend more time slagging those trying to bring such an ideology to pass off for doing so, you think the way to do things is to be so fucking negative all the time? what does that accomplish? corbyn could win this election and follow through on every single policy in that manifesto and youd still slag him off......because thats what people like you do. You know what im not even getting sucked into this, espcially not in the fragile mood im in today, keep your negative doomsayer vibes away from me, some of us maintain a little hope for how things are progressing.

OK then have it your way. One more for the mindless I'm-in, cos that's the better way.

[Trout Mask Replica]

44 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

Can I ask something here? is there literally anything anybody can post here that neil actually agrees with? that he doesn't mock or try and talk down? I heard someone call you devils advocate earlier mate and I have to say they were spot on, you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing a lot of the time.....end of the day enough bullshit.....the election is between the tories and labour that is clear, noone else has a prayer......they've both announced their manifestos, they both have clear agendas, one public spirited and about helping the majority, one about helping the minority and keep those on top on top at the expense of a lot of other people.....pick a side!

for all you can say about corbyn for example there is no fucking way you can tell me that that man and labour are a worse option then Theresa may and the Tory party!

So why do I never.....ever...and I mean ever see you slating the tory party neil? because it doesn't create a hot enough response? 

Similar thoughts had crossed my mind but I don't have the energy to challenge it so sadly have decided to leave this thread alone due to the frustrations you describe here. 

Keep a cool head dear boy, find me at the Earache/Napalm show in a Godflesh shirt and we'll sink a cold one. 

[arcade fireman]

This is part of the problem TBH. Neil is a bit of a contrarian I'm sure but I doubt he's actually a Tory or will vote Tory. So if some of you have so much umbrage at Neil expressing his opinions on Corbyn etc, is it any wonder you're failing to engage with huge sections of the electorate who will go and vote Tory next month?

Unless Labour achieve the highly unlikely, one thing which the Labour movement needs to do is listen to people who voted Tory. Try and talk to and understand why people who were happy voting Labour until not that long ago will be voting Tory in their droves next month, and that will be the case even if the polls hold as they are doing. If some of you have such an issue with Neil's criticisms of Labour and Corbyn from a non Tory position, I can't imagine how you handle actual Tory voters.

Edited May 23, 2017 by arcade fireman

[eFestivals]

52 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

So why do I never.....ever...and I mean ever see you slating the tory party neil? 

If you care to notice, I slated them for the dementia tax proposals, for not going at inheritence hard enough. I'm going to be really dirty now: I applaud them for going for inheritance. 

Is that a bit too socialist for you? Apologies.

[clarkete]

Woo, yay, I hoped you were still in there somewhere and yes nobody would  dispute you're an argumentative bastard, well except you if somebody else had said it 

Edited May 23, 2017 by clarkete

[eFestivals]

18 minutes ago, clarkete said:

Woo, yay, I hoped you were still in there somewhere and yes nobody would  dispute you're an argumentative bastard, well except you if somebody else had said it 

I'll make a greater point of making clear the difference between my personal opinion and a my opinion of the situation in future, for the slow readers.

Edited May 23, 2017 by eFestivals