General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

sid waddell

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Hardly need a history lesson on boris johnsons bigotry and prejudice at this stage. Trouble is the electorate doesnt seem to mind all that much. Whereas labours issues have all too easily been used to whip up a huge level of hysteria against corbyn. I have sympathy for that but there is also the reality that he is at least partially responsible for that in not getting to grips with it until so much of the damage had been done.

On the contrary, Johnson's history of racism and homophobia should be brought up non-stop, he should be continually confronted on it.

Johnson poses a massive threat to ethnic minorities and the LGBTQ+ community because he's more than willing to make them the butt of sick, puerile jokes. That has real life conequences - if the PM of a country can get away with that, it filters through to society and promotes hate speech and marginalisation.

If the Labour leader had a history of such comments, it would be brought up relentlessly until that person was driven out of office.

There are vastly different media standards depending on whether the offender is Tory or Labour - the media don't give a toss about racism and homophobia in the Tory party and never have.

Joe_ Public

sid waddell wrote: »

On the contrary, Johnson's history of racism and homophobia should be brought up non-stop, he should be continually confronted on it.

Johnson poses a massive threat to ethnic minorities and the LGBTQ+ community because he's more than willing to make them the butt of sick, puerile jokes. That has real life conequences - if the PM of a country can get away with that, it filters through to society and promotes hate speech and marginalisation.

If the Labour leader had a history of such comments, it would be brought up relentlessly until that person was driven out of office.

There are vastly different media standards depending on whether the offender is Tory or Labour - the media don't give a toss about racism and homophobia in the Tory party and never have.

I mean, yes, i dont think i am disagreeing on that in any way. Its pretty depressing but how can Johnson be made accountable short of the voters putting him out to pasture where he belongs? Normal rules arent applying here, not unlike the US where we're learning the limits to what trump can get away with before justice finally catches up. I dont really have any answers to be honest. People talk about an alternative labour leader, by which i take it they mean some safe centre right option like a David Miliband but even thats slightly depressing in itself.

sid waddell

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I mean, yes, i dont think i am disagreeing on that in any way. Its pretty depressing but how can Johnson be made accountable short of the voters putting him out to pasture where he belongs? Normal rules arent applying here, not unlike the US where we're learning the limits to what trump can get away with before justice finally catches up. I dont really have any answers to be honest. People talk about an alternative labour leader, by which i take it they mean some safe centre right option like a David Miliband but even thats slightly depressing in itself.

Well, under the current rules of the game, there's very little that can be done, because the game is heavily rigged in favour of the Tories.

Heavily rigged games, where the media is highly biased in favour of one party to the extent where it is shameless propaganda, are how democracies die.

In some countries, such as Russia, they do it by state coercion and physical threats.

In the UK and the US, it's called "the market", where money ensures that the public are fed propaganda which suits the moneyed class and screws the rest. And sure there's a bit of Russian interference too for good measure.

In the rules of this game, mild social democracy is outside the Overton window, but dog whistling racism is inside it, as it doesn't threaten the moneyed classes, as the race baiters have always and will always favour the moneyed classes themselves. You only have to look at the Brexit party to see that.

liamtech

REALLY LOOKING FORWARD to this debate

Is there a possibility for having a poll on this - here on boards, as to who each of us think won the debate? Could be interesting to have one for each of the debates - and obviously we can debate the issues as we expect etc

Mr.Nice Guy

Interested to see how Johnson approaches this. In the Tory debates he knew he had a big lead and tended to try and play it safe. Polls suggest he has a big lead over Corbyn, so does he again play it conservatively tonight - excuse the pun - or does he go aggressively for Corbyn?

Tell me how

liamtech wrote: »

REALLY LOOKING FORWARD to this debate

Is there a possibility for having a poll on this - here on boards, as to who each of us think won the debate? Could be interesting to have one for each of the debates - and obviously we can debate the issues as we expect etc

I'd say PM one of the Mods (Ancapailldorcha/Johnny Skeleton maybe) and ask them to look in to it. Might mean a sepate thread.

I'm going to miss debates unless available on website as in US but very eager to see how it pans out and the interpretation of johnny public is now more reliable than many partisan official commentators.

liamtech

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Interested to see how Johnson approaches this. In the Tory debates he knew he had a big lead and tended to try and play it safe. Polls suggest he has a big lead over Corbyn, so does he again play it conservatively tonight - excuse the pun - or does he go aggressively for Corbyn?

Oh i think he attacks for sure, but then hopefully (from my point of view) gets stung with a few counter punches - Gonna be good - il be recording it (yes- i have no life)

ancapailldorcha

liamtech wrote: »

REALLY LOOKING FORWARD to this debate

Is there a possibility for having a poll on this - here on boards, as to who each of us think won the debate? Could be interesting to have one for each of the debates - and obviously we can debate the issues as we expect etc

Poll here:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058032064#

Joe_ Public

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Interested to see how Johnson approaches this. In the Tory debates he knew he had a big lead and tended to try and play it safe. Polls suggest he has a big lead over Corbyn, so does he again play it conservatively tonight - excuse the pun - or does he go aggressively for Corbyn?

Think he goes on attack because its all he can do, the less focus on his own history and very flimsy set of policies the better. The first 30 minutes is all brexit so we get a half hour of johnson bingo with oven ready pot noodle, dither and delay and all his other inane witterings to carry him through. Corbyn should come into his own second half (game of two halves?) so i think has the chance of leaving the stronger impression. He is the better, more impressive speaker of the two so I'd be confident he can do well, just the first part id worry about.

liamtech

Tell me how wrote: »

I'd say PM one of the Mods (Ancapailldorcha/Johnny Skeleton maybe) and ask them to look in to it. Might mean a sepate thread.

I'm going to miss debates unless available on website as in US but very eager to see how it pans out and the interpretation of johnny public is now more reliable than many partisan official commentators.

Just threw up a post - im going to attempt to record, and then compress via Free To Air satellite - entirely legit so wont be an issue

Quality will be VERY basic due to size considerations

BonnieSituation

Deleted User wrote: »

You seem to obsess over phrases like, "right-wing Tory party", and "further to the right".

The UK has been under Conservative governance for the past decade.

I can't help but notice that the UK is not on its economic knees.

Furthermore, "right-wing" is not a term of abuse.

I espouse right-wing economics because I believe it delivers the best outcomes when implemented in the most pragmatic way.

The same way you obsess over appending the word "regime" to Corbyn:

Deleted User wrote: »

The reasons you are condemning a Boris Administration, is the same reasons you are presumably supporting a Corbyn regime?

Which is it? Or does it matter who says what?

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think it matters who is in power.

After all, Corbyn is in favour of a second referendum on Scotland. If anything, the UK breaking up is just as likely - if not more likely - under a Corbyn regime than a Johnson Administration.

I suppose a Johnson Regime would be much worse than a Corbyn Administration.

Tory Press Office have changed their Twitter handle to "factcheckUK" for the debate.

That's a fvcking new low

https://twitter.com/iancognito16/status/1196896907446145024

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Tory Press Office have changed their Twitter handle to "factcheckUK" for the debate.

That's a fvcking new low

https://twitter.com/iancognito16/status/1196896907446145024

They talk about factchecking while including the big whopper about two referendums in 2020 in the tweet. Not doing themselves any favours at all with that rubbish.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

Tory Press Office have changed their Twitter handle to "factcheckUK" for the debate.

That's a fvcking new low

https://twitter.com/iancognito16/status/1196896907446145024

Cummings doing a great job.

sid waddell

The Russian philosphy is “we’re lying, you know we’re lying, we know you know we’re lying, you know we know you know we’re lying, therefore all this lying is transparent, and therefore honest and trustworthy - which makes our opponents the real liars”.

ie. “in a world and a political environment which is confusing and which we have deliberately manufactured into something even more deeply confusing, the only people you can trust are the blatant and shameless liars - us”.

It’s the exact same approach the Tories take. The fake Twitter fact check account is classic Russia.

Dominic Cummings didn’t lick any of this off the ground, he spent three years in Russia.

He considers himself a “political technologist”, which is what the Russian Goebbels Vladislav Surkov likes to call himself too.

Danzy

sid waddell wrote: »

The Russian philosphy is “we’re lying, you know we’re lying, we know you know we’re lying, you know we know you know we’re lying, therefore all this lying is transparent, and therefore honest and trustworthy - which makes our opponents the real liars”.

ie. “in a world and a political environment which is confusing and which we have deliberately manufactured into something even more deeply confusing, the only people you can trust are the blatant and shameless liars - us”.

It’s the exact same approach the Tories take. The fake Twitter fact check account is classic Russia.

Dominic Cummings didn’t lick any of this off the ground, he spent three years in Russia.

He considers himself a “political technologist”, which is what the Russian Goebbels Vladislav Surkov likes to call himself too.

Russia are the new Mossad, fingers in every pie directing world affairs?

robinph

Fact Checks from the debate:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50421141

Various lies from each of them, but Johnsons seemed to get rolled into single lies (police and NHS counted as one for some reason) to make it seem like there was less and one of the ones they attributed to Corbyn was him underestimating the number of NHS vacancies. How on earth is that counted as him lying, yes the fact checking is good, but it's hardly to his benefit to have underestimated the number by 7,000?

Joe_ Public

robinph wrote: »

Fact Checks from the debate:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50421141

Various lies from each of them, but Johnsons seemed to get rolled into single lies (police and NHS counted as one for some reason) to make it seem like there was less and one of the ones they attributed to Corbyn was him underestimating the number of NHS vacancies. How on earth is that counted as him lying, yes the fact checking is good, but it's hardly to his benefit to have underestimated the number by 7,000?

Seems to me to be a sustained campaign to lump the pair together in terms of untrustworthiness when it is surely clear that johnson is on a level all his own when it comes to bareface lying. I get that people laugh at corbyns brexit position but i dont see that there is anything underhand or deceitful about it.

sid waddell

Danzy wrote: »

Russia are the new Mossad, fingers in every pie directing world affairs?

I find it very interesting that some people are so flippant, defensive and deflective about Russia's influence on international politics.

Sure, let's be flippant here for the craic.

It's not as if Russia has a proven record of actually invading countries or sponsoring far right political groups to destabilise democracy or conducting am international information war or disrupting technological infrastructure in countries they consider enemies - oh wait, they do.

It's not as if dirty Russian money is sloshing all around Europe and the US. Oh wait, it is.

It's not as if Russian propaganda techniques have been widely taken up by mainstream far right politics internationally. Oh wait, they have.

And apparently that's all a big laugh.

Apparently Putin is not the biggest threat to European democracy since Hitler. Oh wait, he is.

Given that sort of an attitude, it's not surprising that British democracy is in the perilous state it's in.

sid waddell

This is how democracies die.

The UK press is a mass right-wing propaganda machine, and a highly effective one at that.


https://twitter.com/lborouniversity/status/1195401829506592769

hometruths

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Seems to me to be a sustained campaign to lump the pair together in terms of untrustworthiness when it is surely clear that johnson is on a level all his own when it comes to bareface lying. I get that people laugh at corbyns brexit position but i dont see that there is anything underhand or deceitful about it.

I agree there is nothing underhand or deceitful about it; indeed when he explained it at his campaign launch it actually sounded quite reasonable.

The problem he has is that he cannot avoid sounding evasive when he asked the direct question "Will you campaign for Leave or Remain in a second referendum?"

Of course it's not underhand or deceitful to not have a decisive view on the biggest issue in this election, and arguably the biggest issue in UK politics since WW2.

But it's not a very clever election strategy.

Joe_ Public

schmittel wrote: »

I agree there is nothing underhand or deceitful about it; indeed when he explained it at his campaign launch it actually sounded quite reasonable.

The problem he has is that he cannot avoid sounding evasive when he asked the direct question "Will you campaign for Leave or Remain in a second referendum?"

Of course it's not underhand or deceitful to not have a decisive view on the biggest issue in this election, and arguably the biggest issue in UK politics since WW2.

But it's not a very clever election strategy.

I think he has answered the question before in that he wont take a firm position either way, but stand back and let people decide. Dont know thats his official line, but think that will be the idea. Harold Wilson did it in 72, so there is a precedent there. Is the situation fundamentally different? I dont know.

But yes, it is true this is hurting him electorally and the die is rather cast now. I sympathise because i believe he is genuine about the desire to heal the divide and the whole business of formulating a second referendum is horribly tricky.

There was probably a more politically astute way of going about it, but my main issue last night and going forward is that this somehow makes corbyn a comparably shifty and deceitful character as the pm. Even the antisemitism issue doesnt nearly make it so either imo.

hometruths

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I think he has answered the question before in that he wont take a firm position either way, but stand back and let people decide. Dont know thats his official line, but think that will be the idea. Harold Wilson did it in 72, so there is a precedent there. Is the situation fundamentally different? I dont know.

For me you have hit the nail on the head here, in your own understanding of his position.... "I think he has answered the question..... Dont know... etc"

Your understanding (a would be Corbyn voter I presume) of his position is completely unclear, but you're happy to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Fair enough. But consider your analysis of how an undecided voter views the ambiguity of his position. Many of them are not likely to give him the benefit of the doubt. And I think that's perfectly fair enough too.

But I think those voters will cost him the chance of being the next prime minister.

Joe_ Public wrote: »

But yes, it is true this is hurting him electorally and the die is rather cast now. I sympathise because i believe he is genuine about the desire to heal the divide and the whole business of formulating a second referendum is horribly tricky.

There was probably a more politically astute way of going about it, but my main issue last night and going forward is that this somehow makes corbyn a comparably shifty and deceitful character as the pm. Even the antisemitism issue doesnt nearly make it so either imo.

There is a suggestion on here and elsewhere that it is not Corbyn's fault that this somehow makes him seem shifty and deceitful; it is the Tories, the Tory press, the Russians (!) or whoever but to a lot of voters it looks like it is his own fault.

He's handed his opponents a stick to beat him with, and as you correctly acknowledge he could have been more politically astute.

The fact that he wasn't is nobody's fault but his own.

Sam Russell

I posted this on the Brexit thread, but it applies here as well.

I think Corbyn should have answered the conundrum of how he will vote after he has negotiated his deal is to say: 'It depends on the deal - what I want is a deal that meets the six tests - If it does, then I will campaign for it, If not then remain is the better option'.

He should not get dragged into hypothetical question as there be dragons. It does not help that his own compass tells him that out of the EU is what he has always believed, and still does. And everyone knows that as well.

He should be on total attack of Tory lies, and particularly, Johnson lies. 'He is not dead in a ditch!' 'We are still in the EU, and Oct 31st has passed!' 'The PM pulled the WAB, not the opposition!' 'The 40 hospitals is a myth - there is no funding and no plans!' 'The NHS is under threat from the Tories - they plan to allow the US companies to run it for profit!' etc. etc.

He should not let the liars of Downing St win.

robinph

Corbyns intention to not say which way he'll vote is perfectly fine, he just didn't explain that the decision is for the public to make in simple enough soundbite terms.
"We'll negotiate a deal and then the people will decide".

Obviously, Johnson would then come back saying that the people had already voted, but they just needed some snappy lines to do with unicorns to throw back to him.

Joe_ Public

schmittel wrote: »

For me you have hit the nail on the head here, in your own understanding of his position.... "I think he has answered the question..... Dont know... etc"

Your understanding (a would be Corbyn voter I presume) of his position is completely unclear, but you're happy to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Fair enough. But consider your analysis of how an undecided voter views the ambiguity of his position. Many of them are not likely to give him the benefit of the doubt. And I think that's perfectly fair enough too.

But I think those voters will cost him the chance of being the next prime minister.



There is a suggestion on here and elsewhere that it is not Corbyn's fault that this somehow makes him seem shifty and deceitful; it is the Tories, the Tory press, the Russians (!) or whoever but to a lot of voters it looks like it is his own fault.

He's handed his opponents a stick to beat him with, and as you correctly acknowledge he could have been more politically astute.

The fact that he wasn't is nobody's fault but his own.

No, thats not quite my position as you've set out. I understand where voters are coming from and thats their business entirely. But my position is that this obsession with where corbyn stands on brexit, whether he'll campaign this way or that, is unhelpful. I understand his strategy while recognising the difficulties with it. What matters to me is that you get a second referendum and i appreciate the requirement to renegotiate a viable alternative. For me personally every other consideration would be secondary.

Another tory candidate falls this morning for antisemitic comments. Yet i watched the jo cockburn show on bbc this morning still treating it as if its only a labour issue. I will always acknowledge the mistakes labour and corbyn himself have made personally on this, but it is not whataboutery to suggest the whole thing has been weaponised against them while the tories have largely been given a free pass. I believe that to be a fact.

sid waddell

Corbyn is now apparently anti-Semitic because he pronounced Epstein as Ep-shtine, not Ep-steen.

Just as well the people who are claiming this aren't Irish, their heads would have exploded with all the references in UK media over the years to Teashops Charles J. Hockey and Bertie Ay-hern, Donna-gaul, Kevin More-ann, Paul McGraTH, Mark Kin-sella, Pad-Raig Harrington etc., not to mention all the Guinness references.

sid waddell

sid waddell wrote: »

Corbyn is now apparently anti-Semitic because he pronounced Epstein as Ep-shtine, not Ep-steen.

Corbyn is not anti-Semitic for a mispronunciation, that would be absurd.

But throughout his career, Corbyn has surrounded himself with devoutly anti-Semitic people and has, since taking over the Labour Party, invited those with anti-Semitic tendencies to thrive against the backdrop of that history.

He is a total and utter disgrace.

sid waddell

Deleted User wrote: »

Corbyn is not anti-Semitic for a mispronunciation, that would be absurd.

But throughout his career, Corbyn has surrounded himself with devoutly anti-Semitic people and has, since taking over the Labour Party, invited those with anti-Semitic tendencies to thrive against the backdrop of that history.

He is a total and utter disgrace.

I suppose if you count supporting the Palestinian cause as anti-Semitism (which you obviously do) that would be the case, however in the real world supporting the Palestinian cause is not remotely anti-Semitic.

Meanwhile 60% of Tory members hold Islamophobic views, and you don't say a word about it.

Labour is an explicitly anti-racist party, meanwhile the Tory party is an irredeemably racist party led by somebody only too willing to engage in racist tropes.

BonnieSituation

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Corbyn is not anti-Semitic for a mispronunciation, that would be absurd.

But throughout his career, Corbyn has surrounded himself with devoutly anti-Semitic people and has, since taking over the Labour Party, invited those with anti-Semitic tendencies to thrive against the backdrop of that history.

He is a total and utter disgrace.

He should have been upfront about his dislike of Jewish people the way, Boris had it in for:

Gay men ("tank-topped bumboys")

Africans ("What a relief it must be for Blair to get out of England. It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies," he wrote, referring to African people as having "watermelon smiles.")

Muslim women ("it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes,")

Women in general ("semi-naked women playing beach volleyball ... glistening like wet otters.")

Sure look, here it all is. I'm sure you'll condemn this in the strongest of terms.


https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-record-sexist-homophobic-and-racist-comments-bumboys-piccaninnies-2019-6?r=US&IR=T