Numero Veinticinco

10 hours ago, Arniepie said:

Any labour voter who says they weren't optimistic in 2017 is lying.

I voted Labour in 2017 (and 2019). I wasn’t optimistic. I’m not lying. I wasn't optimistic because Labour weren’t ever going to win an election outright, not in a month of Sundays, so I felt like I was wasting my vote, it was unlikely they’d get enough votes to form a coalition (Tories were closer to a majority than Labour to a coalition), and if they did manage to scrape enough votes to try for a coalition, then others had ruled it out meaning a fuck load more nonsense, a collapsed government, and their manifesto policies - which weren’t anywhere near left wing enough to stir neither as much opprobrium nor as much devotion as they got - wouldn’t have been enacted. After that, it was obvious to me that it was the high point. It was downhill from there. So if his policies weren’t much to write home about, and even if they were they weren’t getting into play, so there was little for me to be optimistic about.  

I honestly don’t know why there’s so much fuss about somebody so unremarkable. He’s a decent bloke off the allotment and used his safe Labour seat to rebel against Labour. Little more than that, there’s a load of lefties who do lefty things in London. 

17 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

 

This kerfuffle has proven that not to be necessary. If Ukraine was in NATO and needed air cover it would be there within hours. I would be surprised if Slovakia had two dozen modern fighting aircraft in their air force.

Right or wrong there is a hesitancy from the West to give Ukraine the keys and let them drive.

Two dozen modern fighters?! They ducking wish, they have zero. They have like a dozen F16s on order from the US. Currently they have none. 

8 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

Most member states have their own air force, unless I am much mistaken. 

Some are barely worthy of the name though. Lithuania is basically a biplane with an upgrade pack. It’s what the Baltic air policing is all about. That said, it should be a nation that can eventually have a decent air force. In the short term, meaning shortly after the war and joining of NATO it’s no issue for NATO to have a quick reaction force there. And the fact it would be in NATO makes it almost untouchable. 
 

As for the short-short term, it’s about the usability of air power. A-10s aren’t the easiest things to use unless they have proper forward observer capability for CAS targeting and comms. Otherwise shit’ll get dicey. 

4 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

A U.K. defence expert on the news earlier speculated that the Ukrainians have asked for F-16’s knowing that they are unlikely to get them but with a fallback position of accepting A-10’s which they need.  
 

Where do I sign up?  

A-10 will be a difficult platform for them to master. It relies heavily on ground coordination from forward observers/JTO/JTACs and total control of the airspace, because they can’t really fight other aircraft effectively. Amazing for strikes on armour and Russian positions, useless for doing what the F16 does. It’s not a like for like replacement. Well, the F16 is competent multi role now. The Warthog will only give them CAS capabilities. 

3 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Disappointing isn't it.

Yeah, disappointed he got caught; he wouldn’t have mentioned it if he didn’t already know. 

So bored of this bollocks.

Give Tango Dark Berry a go. With ice. Top level. 

21 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

An all time classic from days gone by.

 

So called Socialist plans on buying pushbike.

 

Lucky it wasn't a coffee machine he wanted, the Tory shithouse. 

8 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Desperately disingenuous.

 

For one thing, "Yes, he said he's not a member of the Labour Party, but he meant something else" is not the kind of argument you'd accept from anyone else.

 

Balls is clearly implying that a load of Lefty racists came into the party to support Corbyn and now that they've gone the party is squeaky clean. Evidence suggests that none of that is true.

How is it desperately disingenuous to point out you were incorrectly holding him responsible for something he didn't even say? He clearly meant part of the parliamentary Labour party, he was obviously referring to Starmer kicking him out of that for his lack of contrition and rejection of findings in the report. It's not an argument I'm making, it's a clear and obvious truth. Absolutely everything you said in your 'he was wrong about everything' response either had nothing to do with him or what he said or was just a reach. 

9 minutes ago, magicrat said:

Not so sure the mechanism matters , it will still become Labours problem .

Just the headline issue of the cost of a ticket would cost billions to subsidise.

 

I get what you're saying, but in this case it actually does matter because the franchise system is being scrapped and replaced by short term agreements. When they end, it defaults back to being a nationalised industry. Labour just wont hand out any more contracts, so it won't cost anything to buy. From there, it's not really a cost of subsidy, even if they ran it exactly the same way then it would still be cheaper because profits aren't required or can be used to make tickets cheaper. What Labour need to show is that it can be done well. A lot of the arguments against nationalised industries are that some have been poorly run and are more expensive. It actually doesn't need to be like that at all. It can be well run, more cost effective, and a better service. It's just about getting it right. 

14 minutes ago, magicrat said:

I think it’s better in public ownership too

Cant see Labour taking it on though.

No public money to invest in it and every dispute , safety issue and poor service problem would bounce right back to the government. The Tories would have a field day 

That’s not how bringing rail back into public hands will work though. It’s just not renewing contracts. 

2 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

The wonderful world of privatisation vol 758.

 

awaits a certain poster to say if he'd have shopped around he could have travelled for 10 bob.

 

 

Thought you didn’t mention me? 
 

As for rail, I think it should be nationalised. Labour are going to nationalise it. 
 

1 minute ago, Arniepie said:

im only speaking from an individual perspective and looking at the period overall.

at least upto the election in 2019,as a labour voter,that was the most positive id been that there could be real change under labour in a long time.

Again, that’s fair enough. He was talking about antisemitism though, and Labour in general. So coming at it from different angles. 
 

5 minutes ago, Arniepie said:

agreed but balls specifically stated that the period 15-19 was a shameful period.Thats not how I recall it.

Fair enough, though I disagree; I thought it was pretty poor. Poor in response to antisemitism, poor at fighting elections, and a disjointed papery left behind. I also thought it was poor from a left wing perspective. 
 

Still, Balls was talking about antisemitism specifically and I personally think it was pretty shameful from that perspective. I really urge people to read the executive summary of the EHRC report if they think there’s nothing shameful about that period. 

Have you read the book bingo winner. 

9 minutes ago, Arniepie said:

If we are talking about shameful periods in labours history, I'd argue leaving 100,000s of innocent people dead in Iraq and Afghanistan certainly wouldn't be a highlight.

Indeed that’s shameful, though 1) we shouldn’t be putting that all on Labour as it goes far beyond, and 2) we can talk about more than one thing at once. To bring up the Iraq war in a conversation about antisemitism, live on TV, might have been seen to be, erm, well, it’s ill advised. 

13 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Let's not talk about it, but if you do happen to hear of the massive dividends handed out to water ecx's just put your fingers in your ears.

Yeah, that’s what I said. There’s certainly no difference between Labour and their policy and a discussion about water executives. Good one. 
 

Renationalising Rail but not water or energy has been Labour’s policy since the middle of last year, why are we hearing about this again? Oh, and btw, it would be a great start if they were held to the standards they signed up to. 
 

Bottom line is, if you want a party with a policy to renationalise water then you’re going to have to vote for somebody else, and you’re going to have to do it in the knowledge that you’ll be making it harder for the party that will nationalise rail to win and easier for the party that won’t nationalise anything and will likely drive privatisation of the NHS. If water nationalisation is that important, and clean up and enforcement of rules and standards alone isn’t enough, don’t vote Labour. 

1 hour ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

Ed Balls the man who has no regrets about dressing up in a Nazi uniform when in Uni. 
 

Baddiel, been done to death.

 

Neil, published and article in The Spectator that praised Wehrmacht.

 

I think you’ll understand if I disregard their bollocks. 
 

 

But where do you we draw the line with that standard? The logic of [did a thing] therefore [argument is wrong or ignored] will leave us with just about no credible opinions. Hell, the things I’ve done in life mean I should instantly be ruled out of an opinion if that was the case. Some on here try to dismiss Starmer’s credibility because he once kissed a Tory. Surely we’d all be doomed?
 

Ed Balls isn’t wrong on something he says in 2023 because he dressed up in a Nazi jacket and cap when he was a kid in the 1980s. He might be wrong based off of what he actually said, but not because of former actions. 
 

Don’t get me wrong, ignoring what people say because your previous experiences with them is a personal choice, but it doesn’t mean what they say is necessarily bollocks. Just my two pennies, anyway. 

Just now, Bruce Spanner said:

Thrice a day?

 

I’m exhausted.

Well, you must be parched there in Sudan. Never wank in such low humidity. You know better. 

38 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

here in Sudan

Come again?

1 minute ago, Kepler-186 said:

Article about Canada’s and specifically British Columbia’s attempts at decriminalisation of amounts of hard drugs. Twice as many drug related deaths as Scotland with similar population. 
 

https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2023/02/13/on-canadas-attempt-to-stem-its-unrelenting-drugs-epidemic/

 

 

 

 

I read your post differently to how I think you intended. I read it as twice the amount of drug related deaths due to the previous sentence’s decriminalisation attempt. Turns out that decriminalisation is going to be their attempt at reversing the issue. Phew, I felt my indignation levels rising and my knickers starting to twist. 

18 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

There was plenty of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party before Corbyn. (Luciana Berger wrote a piece about it - in the Mail, I think - when she was an NUS officer, best known for her relationship with Ewan Blair.).

Well, it wasn’t Balls that said there wasn’t, it was the question, so it’s hard for him to be wrong about that. Balls said there had been antisemitism in the left for 100 years. Balls stated that the party and membership changed substantially in the years since 2015 and was still in special measures. That’s all correct.

18 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Jeremy Corbyn is still a member of the Labour Party (I think).

He clearly means a member of the Parliamentary Labour Party. I’ve no doubt the direct debit for his subs is still rolling. 
 

18 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

YouGov polling shows that anti-Semitic opinions among Labour members became less prevalent on Corbyn's watch.

If certainly be interested in seeing information about this. Especially the attitudes of members before Corbyn joined vs after and any analysis of why people stopped being openly antisemitic in interviews when it became a public problem. That said, it doesn’t really have much to do with ol’ Ballsy. He might not have replied in the way you wanted but he certainly didn’t say things untrue. I can’t speak for the rest of the interview of course. 

1 hour ago, Strontium said:

I have more of a problem with Gnasher's outright dishonesty than his hypocrisy. To categorise a Christmas party to which Jeremy Corbyn had been invited as a Boris Johnson victory party is to propagate a level of untruth that is toe-curling.

That’s par for the course with Gnasher, in my experience. To be fair, I doubt he came up with it himself.