Sorry, bit behind on the news, but it appears a member of Labour's front bench has

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

They also wasted a grotesque number of their soldiers' lives in that campaign in their unseemly haste to get as much of Germany as they could. Profligate doesn't come into it.

---

Right, but as discussed they dont care about that. As long as they have the numbers to replace them, and they always do, the deaths dont even register as a cost.

Strange and sinister creature, the russian. You cannot trust him..........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

The core values and the mission never change. Policy is not principle, its the means. Its the ends I vote for.

---

The ends in this being Jeremy Corbyn as PM, John McDonnell as Chancellor, Diane Abbott as Home Secretary and Clause 4 in full effect?

Jesus wept, p. :-(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

The ends in this being Jeremy Corbyn as PM, John McDonnell as Chancellor, Diane Abbott as Home Secretary and Clause 4 in full effect?

Jesus wept, p. :-(

---

Wont be as bad as you fear, b. Its McDonnell you want to watch out for. Corbyn is a picnic compared to him. Proper, old school sack of ****.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

Wont be as bad as you fear, b. Its McDonnell you want to watch out for. Corbyn is a picnic compared to him. Proper, old school sack of ****.

---

Of course, were such a thing to happen, I would be forced to respect the result of the vote.

However, should certain others feel otherwise and - say - launch a military coup, I would unfortunately be helpless to stop them. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Generally speaking, they're like India at cricket: almost invincible on their own wickets, but terrible away from home. Did alright in the latter stages of WWII, but that was with vast amounts of US and British mechanised and logistical support. Left to their own devices, they'd probably have fücked it up.

---

They've bowled well in Syria. They basically bowled ISIS out in the second innings for about 47. And we may not hear much about it but they've been playing well diplomatically too. The only power who have good relations with everyone in the ME.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

On another note, I do get very pïssed off when Americans get all 'Greatest Generation' about WWII and start acting like they did everyone a selfless favour. They were deeply cynical in the way they economically prostrated this country and did extremely well out of it.

Fair enough, that's Realpolitik, but don't start giving it the big'un about how wonderful you are and how we should be grateful.

---

The greatest generation argument is made at the personal level, not the national/political/economical level.

You are quite right that American industry did fantastically well, very often cynically, out of the war. That doesn't change the fact that millions of young, American men volunteered to serve in order to resolve issues in Europe and the Pacific that had little effect on their every day lives or the future security of their country.

The Americans, quite rightly, revere the contribution of that generation of Americans and you as a Brit should be equally grateful. Whether you wish to accept it or not, you never would have won the war without them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

By that logic, you might as well equate it with any political decision where principle trumps economics. After all, declaring war on Germany twice in a century probably wasn't great for the economy either. Does that mean we oughtn't to have done it?

Cameron had to give a vote on the EU to the British people because he'd made a manifesto commitment to do so. The fact that it went the way it did is to me vindication of the fact that it was necessary. After all, is democratically intolerable to have a situation where more than half the country fundamentally disagree with how laws are passed over them, but are democratically denied any effective means of expressing their dissatisfaction.
I'm not saying you have to like it, but to deny that he referendum was justified and necessary is simply undemocratic, I'm afraid. You didn't like it because it went the 'wrong' way, but that doesn't alter its legitimacy. To compare Cameron's decision and any potential negative consequences from it with Corbyn's avowed antipathy to our financial sector is dishonest.
On a side note, personally I'm proud that I live in a country that had the faith in its democracy to vote on two huge existential issues within a couple of years - issues that other nations (I'm looking at you, Spain) simply wouldn't dare touch with a bargepole. I think it's rather a good thing.

The problem I have with your final point is that I've heard many Labour supporters tell me how awful Corbyn is and how much they want rid of him. I've then asked them how they voted in the last election and they tell me they still voted Labour. If you're one of those, you might want to have a think about it.

---

"After all, declaring war on Germany twice in a century probably wasn't great for the economy either."

Er, so you think that your investments would have been safer under GB rule of law or Adolf and/or Willy?

Really, B?

(I'll look at the rest of your post now.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult

"After all, declaring war on Germany twice in a century probably wasn't great for the economy either."

Er, so you think that your investments would have been safer under GB rule of law or Adolf and/or Willy?

Really, B?

(I'll look at the rest of your post now.)

---

The point was we didn't have to go to war either time. We could have cut a deal and carried on in prosperity and peace - at least in the short term. Instead we took the principled decisions - and they cost us dear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

By that logic, you might as well equate it with any political decision where principle trumps economics. After all, declaring war on Germany twice in a century probably wasn't great for the economy either. Does that mean we oughtn't to have done it?

Cameron had to give a vote on the EU to the British people because he'd made a manifesto commitment to do so. The fact that it went the way it did is to me vindication of the fact that it was necessary. After all, is democratically intolerable to have a situation where more than half the country fundamentally disagree with how laws are passed over them, but are democratically denied any effective means of expressing their dissatisfaction.
I'm not saying you have to like it, but to deny that he referendum was justified and necessary is simply undemocratic, I'm afraid. You didn't like it because it went the 'wrong' way, but that doesn't alter its legitimacy. To compare Cameron's decision and any potential negative consequences from it with Corbyn's avowed antipathy to our financial sector is dishonest.
On a side note, personally I'm proud that I live in a country that had the faith in its democracy to vote on two huge existential issues within a couple of years - issues that other nations (I'm looking at you, Spain) simply wouldn't dare touch with a bargepole. I think it's rather a good thing.

The problem I have with your final point is that I've heard many Labour supporters tell me how awful Corbyn is and how much they want rid of him. I've then asked them how they voted in the last election and they tell me they still voted Labour. If you're one of those, you might want to have a think about it.

---

I'll deal with the last bit before I get to the crux:

"I've then asked them how they voted in the last election and they tell me they still voted Labour. If you're one of those, you might want to have a think about it. "

I know her personally. She was one of the 50 that defied him to vote against Art 50, and signed the VoNC in him. I defended her at those hustings when the SWP Jez brigade wanted to lynch her.

I trust her, B.

Or are you saying that the GB/UK constitution is wrong to have representative democracy and we should go presidential?

By your logic, you should blame Finsbury Park voters for Iraq even though their MP, Jez Cünt, voted against it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

By that logic, you might as well equate it with any political decision where principle trumps economics. After all, declaring war on Germany twice in a century probably wasn't great for the economy either. Does that mean we oughtn't to have done it?

Cameron had to give a vote on the EU to the British people because he'd made a manifesto commitment to do so. The fact that it went the way it did is to me vindication of the fact that it was necessary. After all, is democratically intolerable to have a situation where more than half the country fundamentally disagree with how laws are passed over them, but are democratically denied any effective means of expressing their dissatisfaction.
I'm not saying you have to like it, but to deny that he referendum was justified and necessary is simply undemocratic, I'm afraid. You didn't like it because it went the 'wrong' way, but that doesn't alter its legitimacy. To compare Cameron's decision and any potential negative consequences from it with Corbyn's avowed antipathy to our financial sector is dishonest.
On a side note, personally I'm proud that I live in a country that had the faith in its democracy to vote on two huge existential issues within a couple of years - issues that other nations (I'm looking at you, Spain) simply wouldn't dare touch with a bargepole. I think it's rather a good thing.

The problem I have with your final point is that I've heard many Labour supporters tell me how awful Corbyn is and how much they want rid of him. I've then asked them how they voted in the last election and they tell me they still voted Labour. If you're one of those, you might want to have a think about it.

---

The middle bit:

1. DC didn't have to call the referendum.
2. We have representative democracy, not direct.
3. I take your point that the result [could] suggest the vote needed to be called.
4. But if we have that, then let's have votes on every single issue - no. of nurses, and how much we pay them, and living wage, and mil spending etc etc etc.

If the moronic, GB public got what they wanted, we'd have the death penalty, work-houses for benefits, but a massive, expensive state paid for by the people in [I assume] your income bracket, B.

Careful what you wish for, imo.