Tuesday 11th April 2017

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 3:58 pm

I see Merkel backed Trump''s air strikes. And Hollandaise, I think.

It's easy for Corbyn and Lucas to oppose but the US needs anchoring to Europe. Trump''s opponents in the US don't need the EU banging away at the US.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 3:59 pm

Po-gress?

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 4:00 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Po-gress?

What ?

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 4:02 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:I see Merkel backed Trump''s air strikes. And Hollandaise, I think.

It's easy for Corbyn and Lucas to oppose but the US needs anchoring to Europe. Trump''s opponents in the US don't need the EU banging away at the US.

Indeed Tubby

Which is why a right wing leader of Germany may need to ally with the US, whereas Her Majesty's Official opposition in the UK who, despite the best efforts of Po-gress, are a broadly left wing party should perhaps provide some, err, opposition?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 4:04 pm

Nobody will mistake your for the PM if you do like Corbyn.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 4:05 pm

pk1 wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Po-gress?
What ?

Oh just Hugo's "I'm not usually po-faced" from earlier

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 4:05 pm

SH if it impossible to pre determine how do you know it is obviously wrong

Rhetorical question.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 4:07 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Nobody will mistake your for the PM if you do like Corbyn.

Not in the neo-liberal hell we've become no.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 4:08 pm

Merkel and Hollande are neo-liberal ultras, are they?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 4:11 pm

Well as you surely know Flanby's approval ratings make Jez look good in comparison. A complete waste of space since his election, and a crushing disappointment for the left across Europe.

Unlike him I have some respect for Merkel, and she is quite entitled to take the view she does. Others are equally free to disagree.

As related upthread, by no means is the whole EU on board regarding this.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 4:14 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Merkel and Hollande are neo-liberal ultras, are they?

Oh Tubby I didn't reply on Hollande and you know it.

Merkel actually belongs IMHO to an older tradition we used to call "monetarist" I think, out of Chicago via Thatcher and Reagan.

It's funny how she now look like some shining beacon of reason. But IMHO her approach to the economy, as expressed often through the ECB, has much to answer for in our current predicament. The disastrous rules (I can't even remember what they are called now) for Euro membership led directly to the crash in Greece and less so in other areas in Europe and so, politically, to some of the major political problems in the EU.

I have respect for her in some areas, not least foreign policy, but she is no angel.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 4:18 pm

Greece led directly to Greece. Nobody else.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 4:22 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Greece led directly to Greece. Nobody else.

Err they have been in the EU and the Euro zone.

For clarity, I'm not blaming Merkel for the Euro, of course, but for enforcing the monetarist rules that came with it.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 4:22 pm

Greece is still leading to Greece. Only just done a deal on pensions, the biggest bugbear of the creditors.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 4:24 pm

Point is if it's not OK to be to the left of Merkel we truly are doomed.

And now apologies all for having taken up more than my fair share of space here today.

Toodle-oo

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 4:38 pm

HindleA wrote:SH if it impossible to pre determine how do you know it is obviously wrong

Rhetorical question.

I don't think rhetorical is the adjective you're looking for.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 4:45 pm

Could have stopped after "I don't think"

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 4:58 pm

That was meant as a self directed(ie to me)jibe.

You made valid points on lpc/wages boards etc,to be fair.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 5:07 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Point is if it's not OK to be to the left of Merkel we truly are doomed.

And now apologies all for having taken up more than my fair share of space here today.

Toodle-oo

No need to ever apologise for contributing here, certainly not in your case anyway

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 5:34 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Point is if it's not OK to be to the left of Merkel we truly are doomed.

And now apologies all for having taken up more than my fair share of space here today.

Toodle-oo

Well, I hope you come back today.

I'm very worry about Britain getting isolated.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 6:10 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Greece led directly to Greece. Nobody else.
Err they have been in the EU and the Euro zone.

For clarity, I'm not blaming Merkel for the Euro, of course, but for enforcing the monetarist rules that came with it.

The rules have been tough on a number of countries, I agree, but when the rules would have prevented Greece from joining the Euro in the first place if Greece hadn't contrived to hide its true debt situation, I think what has happened as a result is at least partially Greece's responsibility. Although, greater caution could have been applied when considering their application. Goldman Sachs must hold some responsibility also, I should have thought, but we don't hear much about that.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 6:31 pm

Posted in error.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 6:35 pm

Greece could have still sorted stuff out after joining. The Euro was very much launched at a "moment", with stuff still to be sorted out. Some places did, like Belgium, which had awful debt in the mid 90s, other places didn't. There wasn't really any way of making especially Greece make changes. Hence the very strict stuff now which was harsh on Ireland and Spain.

Plus, of course, Italy, which isn't anything like as bad as Greece but is huge.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 6:40 pm

Labour claiming Tories will privatise our home care service,to be honest I haven't looked,but what can be said in the two times in power with thirty year gap,in the first they tried to contrary to prior pledge and in the second,introduced charging(we were one of the handful that didn't charge)again contrary to previous pledge,so whatever their stated position their aim is to privatise en masse or in effect,the union ensures decent wages and conditions much to their obvious chagrin.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 6:41 pm

This is good on the run up to crisis in Greece.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/takis-s-p ... ece-failed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Greek society became the recipient of three types of state-related benefits: real incomes (such as salaries and pensions) derived from classical patronage functions; privileged protection against market risks; and impunity from the law.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 6:44 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Point is if it's not OK to be to the left of Merkel we truly are doomed.

And now apologies all for having taken up more than my fair share of space here today.

Toodle-oo
Well, I hope you come back today.

I'm very worry about Britain getting isolated.

We are isolated, outside the EU we have less influence than Belgium.

Also the idea that opposition to bombing a military target that launched a Sarin attack on children makes you left wing is total bollocks.

It might indicate a personal opinion, which is fine, memership of the Stop The West Coalition, or that you are Briebart, Nigel Farage or Katie Bloody Hopkins.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 6:56 pm

it's like going back to Leeds and finding that they've made the Eldon open plan

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 6:57 pm

Or worse that they've now also turned the Packhorse into a shitehole (which clearly they have)
http://www.thepackhorseleeds.co.uk/index" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 6:58 pm

clearly we have lost our soul
Brexit was just the final nail

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 7:11 pm

Must have past that pub,or nearby,numerous times in annual running around for hours until you end up in the same place event,incredibly several thousands do it,I know because I see them all in front of me,but I have never heard of it,granted it takes me some years for information to be processed.

Bonnylad · Post by **Bonnylad** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 7:33 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... n-team-bus" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 7:42 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Point is if it's not OK to be to the left of Merkel we truly are doomed.

And now apologies all for having taken up more than my fair share of space here today.

Toodle-oo
Well, I hope you come back today.

I'm very worry about Britain getting isolated.
We are isolated, outside the EU we have less influence than Belgium.

Also the idea that opposition to bombing a military target that launched a Sarin attack on children makes you left wing is total bollocks.

It might indicate a personal opinion, which is fine, memership of the Stop The West Coalition, or that you are Briebart, Nigel Farage or Katie Bloody Hopkins.

Thanks for the "bollocks" remark on what was a totally reasonable comment I believe. If indeed it was aimed at me.

I focused primarily on the duty of an opposition to oppose! But you have ignored this point completely. Nevertheless, I think it's fair to say that the left tend to seek a more consensual approach to foreign policy than the right.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 7:44 pm

Good afternoon from NYC, and food evening to you all

I have just read some of the posts over the last few days

Number 1 post for lacking self-awareness is from TE who thinks that playing the man is not on (I assume he means because I express my personal opinion on Hugo, which I think is pertinent as I am not of the assumption I am not debating with someone who is honest and so will change his story depending on the direction on the wind) when every post he puts on here seems to involve some sort of 'Corbyn is crap' paragraph. In this he is ably supported by his pal Hugo....

In response to the post above, I don't think anyone here has suggested that being left-wing is based on opposition to chemical weapon attacks - that is a ridiculous statement to be honest. Just as it does not make you right wing to support it.

My opinion is that the war in Syria involves disgraceful behaviour from all sides, especially Assad, and has been an abject failure of international diplomacy. There was a time when a military response may have played a part in holding back the civil war but that is long past now and any military intervention is fraught with problems. Assad was feted by us when he was useful, just like Saddam was in previous times and now he is not so popular with those in power.

My issue with he attack last week was that it seem there has been no consideration of the consequences and planning as to what to do next. Any intervention needs to take that into account. It is not the 'what' that bothers me as much as the 'how' and 'what next?'

The idea that a direct intervention from someone as unstable and reactive as Trump is wholly good is naive in my view and the consequences may not be apparent yet.

Those who have been solidly behind the Trump action and who have come out above insulting those who suggest that it may not have been wise should just hold back a bit and there have even been suggestions that this is the only way as 'diplomacy' and 'peace' are not an option - although what the military only option is evades a bit and I have not seen anything suggesting the US/UK know either

I get the feeling that the world is holding its breath a bit to see whether Trump has got away with this one (and he may have) and it will be seen as a success if it prevents further chemical attacks. The problem is I do see this as Trump 'getting away with it' and it seems he is becoming more interventionist as predicted. His threats against North Korea another example.

One day his type of active intervention without any seeming work alongside diplomacy will lead to severe consequences, and I think that is what I am cautioning against

So, opposition to the way Trump has gone about this action in Syria is not linked to support of Assad or because I am left wing - it is because the man in the White House is still as unstable and unprincipled as the day before the bombing, and that his approach to foreign affairs may have drastic consequences one day.....

The response from TE and Hugo is a left-over from the neoliberal interventionist policies form the Bush/Blair eras....know it is the Trump/May era and, never mind how much I distrusted the former two, I have even less confidence in the latter.

And now to the accusations of 'whataboutery' - the one problem with being interventionist is that you have people making a lot of noise about intervention is some areas but not in others....how about intervening in the Saudi Arabian attack on Yemen by not selling them weapons, or intervening in Bahrain by not selling them weapons, or by intervening in the death squads in the Philippines by not crawling to their vile President. And then supporting a repugnant Israeli Government in its actions....this type of behaviour undermines the arguments put forward by our Governments

Syria's problems will only be solved by diplomatic discussion - there is no military intervention that will change that - I assume though that Hugo, having rubbished any comments on diplomacy or looking for peace will have all the answers as to how this will occur?

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 7:47 pm

Oh so grudging

In private, even Corbyn’s staunchest critics reluctantly welcome the renewed vigour with which Labour’s top team appears to be approaching policymaking – though some joke the policies are more Miliband than Marx. But even his most enthusiastic advocates wonder whether it may be too little, too late.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... e-too-late" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 7:54 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Oh so grudging
In private, even Corbyn’s staunchest critics reluctantly welcome the renewed vigour with which Labour’s top team appears to be approaching policymaking – though some joke the policies are more Miliband than Marx. But even his most enthusiastic advocates wonder whether it may be too little, too late.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... e-too-late" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Too late for what exactly?

Is there an election before 2020 I have not heard of?

Wasn't this the discussion about Miliband in the last Parliament - that he had to announce policies 3 years before an election?

At the moment we have now idea what Brexit will look like in reality or in what state the economy will be in. Also, it is obvious ti anyone wit a political brain that the Tories will steal any decent policies, or at least pretend to, and so revealing them too early is naïve in the extreme

The Tory 2015 manifesto was a document of lies, mistruths and abandoned policies - why should Labour actually have any policies that work and are costed - we should just make up some things like the Tories do

We are told the Tories are seen as more competent and May and Cameron were popular PM so perhaps wasting energy on policies by Labour is not the thing to do?

Trump got elected with no policies either......so, again, why bother?

Policies that are costed and based on truth are so 20th century!

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 7:57 pm

guess what?
I don't give a flying f*&$ who likes who and who doesn't like who and who thinks who's a troll and who doesn't.

what I am interested in is your thoughts on all the other stuff. I think we've just about got it on where we all stand on each other, so it probably doesn't need airing further.

Ta.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 8:02 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:guess what?
I don't give a flying f*&$ who likes who and who doesn't like who and who thinks who's a troll and who doesn't.

what I am interested in is your thoughts on all the other stuff. I think we've just about got it on where we all stand on each other, so it probably doesn't need airing further.

Ta.

I don't give a flying f*&$ what you think either......so probably you should stop telling other people what to post

Ta

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 8:02 pm

morality and legality not always aligned:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 78716.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
United Airlines passenger dragged off overbooked flight ‘broke the law,’ says aviation legal expert

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 8:10 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Oh so grudging
In private, even Corbyn’s staunchest critics reluctantly welcome the renewed vigour with which Labour’s top team appears to be approaching policymaking – though some joke the policies are more Miliband than Marx. But even his most enthusiastic advocates wonder whether it may be too little, too late.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... e-too-late" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Too late for what exactly?

Is there an election before 2020 I have not heard of?

Wasn't this the discussion about Miliband in the last Parliament - that he had to announce policies 3 years before an election?

At the moment we have now idea what Brexit will look like in reality or in what state the economy will be in. Also, it is obvious ti anyone wit a political brain that the Tories will steal any decent policies, or at least pretend to, and so revealing them too early is naïve in the extreme

The Tory 2015 manifesto was a document of lies, mistruths and abandoned policies - why should Labour actually have any policies that work and are costed - we should just make up some things like the Tories do

We are told the Tories are seen as more competent and May and Cameron were popular PM so perhaps wasting energy on policies by Labour is not the thing to do?

Trump got elected with no policies either......so, again, why bother?

Policies that are costed and based on truth are so 20th century!

The other response has been "but these aren't new policies, these are Ed's policies".

Try as I might, given Ed resigned, I can find no reason why some of his policies shouldn't be recycled.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 8:10 pm

In other words, damned if you do have policies, damned if you don't.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 8:12 pm

Far from a Corbyn supporter but obvious they've and the militant anti Corbyn elements,regardless on effect on partyists that every angle is covered.No policy,extreme policy,copied policy,every utterance is shit,every non utterance is neglectful shit,his shadow cabinet is shit,even if the same people that in an imagined former life were not,mysteriously transformed.You don't have to believe they are scared of him winning bollox,and even I,with two remaining functioning braincells rapidly reducing to one after paint intoxication ,recognise,the resulting deleterious effects on party,regardless.I tend to,given it is local elections in May,concern myself with that,given they are responsible for crucial areas of life,and the Tories are in power,unless I've missed(quite possibly) a GE upcoming date,given the vote Green,which I can't do anyway repetitions,and,despite it doesn't matter line,personal experience suggests it fucking does.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 8:12 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:
tinyclanger2 wrote:guess what?
I don't give a flying f*&$ who likes who and who doesn't like who and who thinks who's a troll and who doesn't.

what I am interested in is your thoughts on all the other stuff. I think we've just about got it on where we all stand on each other, so it probably doesn't need airing further.

Ta.
I don't give a flying f*&$ what you think either......so probably you should stop telling other people what to post

Ta

Sigh.
What I said was:
"what I am interested in is your thoughts"

I honestly don't think that requesting that we lay off each other and focus on the content instead is especially objectionable. If it is, I guess I'm in the wrong place. It is indeed, like the Packhorse gone "gastro".

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 8:14 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:
tinyclanger2 wrote:guess what?
I don't give a flying f*&$ who likes who and who doesn't like who and who thinks who's a troll and who doesn't.

what I am interested in is your thoughts on all the other stuff. I think we've just about got it on where we all stand on each other, so it probably doesn't need airing further.

Ta.
I don't give a flying f*&$ what you think either......so probably you should stop telling other people what to post

Ta
Sigh.
What I said was:
"what I am interested in is your thoughts"

I honestly don't think that requesting that we lay off each other and focus on the content instead is especially objectionable. If it is, I guess I'm in the wrong place. It is indeed, like the Packhorse gone "gastro".

you are right, I was wrong....

I stand by having the right to point out if I think someone on here is less than honest with their intentions though.....

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 8:14 pm

Anyway..........Sean Spicer, anyone??

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 8:16 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:In other words, damned if you do have policies, damned if you don't.

Indeed......déjà view from 2012/2013 I think

I am happy to see Miliband having a legacy with respect to Labour policies.......

I thought Labour were hard-left though?

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 8:17 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Anyway..........Sean Spicer, anyone??

Best ignored?

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 8:30 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Anyway..........Sean Spicer, anyone??

Yes, not good...

Wonder how many of the Trump enthusiasts are thinking "What have we done?" right now.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 8:31 pm

But.....but I thought The Donald only employed the BESTEST and BIGLIEST people to work for him??!!??

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 8:32 pm

Apologies if some repetition of points made in my previous post,if indeed anybody read or deciphered,by the time I'd finished several posts had appeared in the meantime.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Tue 11 Apr, 2017 8:33 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:morality and legality not always aligned:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 78716.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
United Airlines passenger dragged off overbooked flight ‘broke the law,’ says aviation legal expert

The aviation legal expert is utterly wrong, you will be pleased to know.

UA have not only misapplied aviation law, they have also broken their own Ts&Cs.

1. They are permitted to deny boarding, they are not permitted to tell you to leave once you have boarded. The exception being safety of the aircraft and or other passengers. Doesn't apply here.

2. The flight was not overbooked 4 UA employees turned up and the company decided they needed to fly them to a specific destination.

3. They invoked security to deal with a purely commercial dispute, where passenger compliance with their instructions was not required.

4. Even worse than the CEO email, somebody has leaked details of a spent conviction, which will probably cost the passenger his current and future job. This just adds yet more zeros to what will be a huge compensation claim.

5. The flights destination was a 4.5 hour drive away.

6. Total cost to company shares $600 million.

If the CEO lasts the week I will be shocked. This one is going down in history as one of the great PR disasters.