RugbyRebels

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote:FB_IMG_1650201611219.jpg

Well, going by the old testament they'd probably all be put to the sword.

I'm not a Christian myself, but I believe the whole point of the "Jesus thing" was that the old testament rules no longer applied and you were supposed to love other people and be decent to those in need.

Could be wrong though. Seems to be a lot of chocolate involved today, so maybe that's the important thing.

Puja

Who knows, Christians cherry pick from the whole of the Bible for bits that suit them at any given time, whilst ignoring the God-mandated genocides. But yep, Jesus didn't do any of the nasty stuff, unless you count the global massacres in Revelations.

I too am in favour of the chocolate egg doctrine.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: With the last straw thing, do you mean just the Rwanda plan or the whole week's events?

Where do you stand yourself? Have they crossed the line for you this week?

They crossed the line for me a couple of decades back, when it became clear that Ken Clarke was too left wing to ever lead them.

I think its been an accumulation for those on the left of the party. Even the right of the party should not be happy at the Prime Minister breaking the law, but they may be appeased by this Rwanda nonsense.

Where do you stand? Is it too much for you?

Since you ask I have no intention of voting conservative at any future elections until Boris is gone. Voted Conservative last time as Corbyn was an utter joke, but that threat has gone now.

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: I think its been an accumulation for those on the left of the party. Even the right of the party should not be happy at the Prime Minister breaking the law, but they may be appeased by this Rwanda nonsense.

Where do you stand? Is it too much for you?

Since you ask I have no intention of voting conservative at any future elections until Boris is gone. Voted Conservative last time as Corbyn was an utter joke, but that threat has gone now.

Genuine question - I appreciate it's a Hobson's choice given your opinion of Corbyn, but given what we now know about a Johnson government, would you still rather have had him rather than Corbyn?

Puja

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Where do you stand? Is it too much for you?

Since you ask I have no intention of voting conservative at any future elections until Boris is gone. Voted Conservative last time as Corbyn was an utter joke, but that threat has gone now.

Genuine question - I appreciate it's a Hobson's choice given your opinion of Corbyn, but given what we now know about a Johnson government, would you still rather have had him rather than Corbyn?

Puja

Yes. Through gritted teeth I admit but yes, it could be worse.

Corbyn is refusing to support Ukraine which most normal people would agree Boris is doing well on (accidentally in my view but still). Boris was way too slow to manage covid but I don’t think that Corbyn et al would have done any better.

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Since you ask I have no intention of voting conservative at any future elections until Boris is gone. Voted Conservative last time as Corbyn was an utter joke, but that threat has gone now.

Genuine question - I appreciate it's a Hobson's choice given your opinion of Corbyn, but given what we now know about a Johnson government, would you still rather have had him rather than Corbyn?

Puja

Yes. Through gritted teeth I admit but yes, it could be worse.

Corbyn is refusing to support Ukraine which most normal people would agree Boris is doing well on (accidentally in my view but still). Boris was way too slow to manage covid but I don’t think that Corbyn et al would have done any better.

Citation needed?

Puja

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Since you ask I have no intention of voting conservative at any future elections until Boris is gone. Voted Conservative last time as Corbyn was an utter joke, but that threat has gone now.

Genuine question - I appreciate it's a Hobson's choice given your opinion of Corbyn, but given what we now know about a Johnson government, would you still rather have had him rather than Corbyn?

Puja

Yes. Through gritted teeth I admit but yes, it could be worse.

Corbyn is refusing to support Ukraine which most normal people would agree Boris is doing well on (accidentally in my view but still). Boris was way too slow to manage covid but I don’t think that Corbyn et al would have done any better.

So I’ve just looked this up and I can only find the negative part on the express or gb news, and others like that. So it seems you’ve been fed some nice propaganda, and corbyn is not refusing to support Ukraine.

You also have to remember that he’s a backbencher again AND a pacifist. So not going to send weapons if there could possibly be any other way seems pretty on brand. That doesn’t mean a lack of support.

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:
Genuine question - I appreciate it's a Hobson's choice given your opinion of Corbyn, but given what we now know about a Johnson government, would you still rather have had him rather than Corbyn?

Puja

Yes. Through gritted teeth I admit but yes, it could be worse.

Corbyn is refusing to support Ukraine which most normal people would agree Boris is doing well on (accidentally in my view but still). Boris was way too slow to manage covid but I don’t think that Corbyn et al would have done any better.

Citation needed?

Puja

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -war-rally

It was the support of Corbyn for the this rally that spring to mind. Do you think he would have provided so much military support for Ukraine?

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:
Genuine question - I appreciate it's a Hobson's choice given your opinion of Corbyn, but given what we now know about a Johnson government, would you still rather have had him rather than Corbyn?

Puja

Yes. Through gritted teeth I admit but yes, it could be worse.

Corbyn is refusing to support Ukraine which most normal people would agree Boris is doing well on (accidentally in my view but still). Boris was way too slow to manage covid but I don’t think that Corbyn et al would have done any better.

So I’ve just looked this up and I can only find the negative part on the express or gb news, and others like that. So it seems you’ve been fed some nice propaganda, and corbyn is not refusing to support Ukraine.

You also have to remember that he’s a backbencher again AND a pacifist. So not going to send weapons if there could possibly be any other way seems pretty on brand. That doesn’t mean a lack of support.

When was the last time Corbyn changed his mind? Would hisnview be any different if he were PM? Why? Would he be supplying weapons now, or have authorised the training of the Ukrainian military over the past few years?

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Yes. Through gritted teeth I admit but yes, it could be worse.

Corbyn is refusing to support Ukraine which most normal people would agree Boris is doing well on (accidentally in my view but still). Boris was way too slow to manage covid but I don’t think that Corbyn et al would have done any better.

So I’ve just looked this up and I can only find the negative part on the express or gb news, and others like that. So it seems you’ve been fed some nice propaganda, and corbyn is not refusing to support Ukraine.

You also have to remember that he’s a backbencher again AND a pacifist. So not going to send weapons if there could possibly be any other way seems pretty on brand. That doesn’t mean a lack of support.

When was the last time Corbyn changed his mind? Would hisnview be any different if he were PM? Why? Would he be supplying weapons now, or have authorised the training of the Ukrainian military over the past few years?

Would Corbyn have taken so much Russian money and allowed so much influence in British politics so that Putin clearly felt he could act with impunity?

Puja

Corrupt and incompetent Vs. a doddery old duffer living under the manufactured fear of communism. Could you have better choices? Yes, but it seems from afar that the Tory party is absolutely infested with self serving entitled spunkbaskets that do not give a flying fuck about the public. If a global public health emergency, with volumes of data generated to objectively assess metrics of performance, cannot lay bare just how useless and unreliable these parasites are, then nothing will.

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:
So I’ve just looked this up and I can only find the negative part on the express or gb news, and others like that. So it seems you’ve been fed some nice propaganda, and corbyn is not refusing to support Ukraine.

You also have to remember that he’s a backbencher again AND a pacifist. So not going to send weapons if there could possibly be any other way seems pretty on brand. That doesn’t mean a lack of support.

When was the last time Corbyn changed his mind? Would hisnview be any different if he were PM? Why? Would he be supplying weapons now, or have authorised the training of the Ukrainian military over the past few years?

Would Corbyn have taken so much Russian money and allowed so much influence in British politics so that Putin clearly felt he could act with impunity?

Puja

Would Corbyn have made it public that the letter of last resort to British nuclear submarine commanders would not have allowed for a retaliatory strike? Of course he would, he made his intention clear plenty of times. Putin could only have been encouraged by a Corbyn government that pushed Nato away, hobbled the strategic nuclear forces and would have swallowed his propaganda (based on Corbyns support for the stop the war folks).

Are you seriously suggesting that Corbyn would have deterred anyone?*

*Except to vote for him.

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
When was the last time Corbyn changed his mind? Would hisnview be any different if he were PM? Why? Would he be supplying weapons now, or have authorised the training of the Ukrainian military over the past few years?

Would Corbyn have taken so much Russian money and allowed so much influence in British politics so that Putin clearly felt he could act with impunity?

Puja

Would Corbyn have made it public that the letter of last resort to British nuclear submarine commanders would not have allowed for a retaliatory strike? Of course he would, he made his intention clear plenty of times. Putin could only have been encouraged by a Corbyn government that pushed Nato away, hobbled the strategic nuclear forces and would have swallowed his propaganda (based on Corbyns support for the stop the war folks).

Are you seriously suggesting that Corbyn would have deterred anyone?*

*Except to vote for him.

Fair points on the NATO and nuclear deterrent. I'm just mildly entertained that Russia is proposed an an area where Boris would be better than Corbyn, considering Corbyn was treated like a bit of a xenophobic weirdo for making noise about Russian money in British politics back in 2018 and has been protesting Putin's human rights outrages as far back as 2000 when Blair was granting him a royal visit. For someone who's turned out to be very right on the subject, it's odd that it's seen as a weakness.

Mind, I guess this is one area where Boris's mendaciousness and lack of any loyalty or shame has played in the UK's favour - I'd imagine the Kremlin possibly regarded him at one point as bought and paid for, in the same way Trump was, only to discover that Boris hasn't met a deal that he wouldn't welch on if it was populist enough to do so.

Puja

Johnson on the Ukrainian invasion is very much a case of “broken clock, twice a day.”

Corbin was right about Putin back in the day, but his stance, as outlined in the piece he wrote for Jacobin suggests he’s struggling to process that there is clearly no value in continued negotiations with Putin, as long as he’s unwilling to engage in anything even resembling good faith. Like, you’d have to be pretty deep into your own soup if you think Putin is anything other than a horse cum-guzzling lying sack of shit. Name a ceasefire agreement his pack of bandits haven’t broken, Jezza. Go on, I’ll wait.

https://www.stopwar.org.uk/article/list ... r-ukraine/

The amount of BS in the above, with him as lead signatory, is unreal. I could quote the most egregious parts but they’re blindingly obvious.
He’s completely wrong on this, as he was on the Salisbury poisonings. Kudos for calling out Russian money in The City but that’s probably mostly fuelled by it being The City and the money coming from the privatisation of state owned asserts, and a glorious socialist state at that. Also kudos for calling out the Chechen atrocities but given who he has invited to parliament over the years, eg PLO and IRA, and his constant calls for dialogue between opposing parties it seems a funny thing to complain about trying to bring Putin in to the fold.
Perhaps he should go on RT/Russia Today again to avail us of his wisdom and how he would act if he were PM. I’d imagine it would something along the lines of being present but not involved……

Sandydragon wrote:Would he be supplying weapons now, or have authorised the training of the Ukrainian military over the past few years?

Key points - see the link in the previous post re armaments to Ukraine prior to the invasion. There’s a good argument Russia would have already won, and at the very least been a lot more ‘successful’, without the U.K’s involvement in the above.

Mellsblue wrote:https://www.stopwar.org.uk/article/list ... r-ukraine/

The amount of BS in the above, with him as lead signatory, is unreal. I could quote the most egregious parts but they’re blindingly obvious.
He’s completely wrong on this, as he was on the Salisbury poisonings. Kudos for calling out Russian money in The City but that’s probably mostly fuelled by it being The City and the money coming from the privatisation of state owned asserts, and a glorious socialist state at that. Also kudos for calling out the Chechen atrocities but given who he has invited to parliament over the years, eg PLO and IRA, and his constant calls for dialogue between opposing parties it seems a funny thing to complain about trying to bring Putin in to the fold.
Perhaps he should go on RT/Russia Today again to avail us of his wisdom and how he would act if he were PM. I’d imagine it would something along the lines of being present but not involved……

That is one big pacifist blanky to throw over a number of distinct and complex wars.

Still think Boris is an unmitigated fuckwit and had little to do with strategy over and above the PR opportunity. He looked like he'd woken up after a stag do.

morepork wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:https://www.stopwar.org.uk/article/list ... r-ukraine/

The amount of BS in the above, with him as lead signatory, is unreal. I could quote the most egregious parts but they’re blindingly obvious.
He’s completely wrong on this, as he was on the Salisbury poisonings. Kudos for calling out Russian money in The City but that’s probably mostly fuelled by it being The City and the money coming from the privatisation of state owned asserts, and a glorious socialist state at that. Also kudos for calling out the Chechen atrocities but given who he has invited to parliament over the years, eg PLO and IRA, and his constant calls for dialogue between opposing parties it seems a funny thing to complain about trying to bring Putin in to the fold.
Perhaps he should go on RT/Russia Today again to avail us of his wisdom and how he would act if he were PM. I’d imagine it would something along the lines of being present but not involved……

That is one big pacifist blanky to throw over a number of distinct and complex wars.

Still think Boris is an unmitigated fuckwit and had little to do with strategy over and above the PR opportunity. He looked like he'd woken up after a stag do.

Don’t worry, old bean. That is priced in.

morepork wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:https://www.stopwar.org.uk/article/list ... r-ukraine/

The amount of BS in the above, with him as lead signatory, is unreal. I could quote the most egregious parts but they’re blindingly obvious.
He’s completely wrong on this, as he was on the Salisbury poisonings. Kudos for calling out Russian money in The City but that’s probably mostly fuelled by it being The City and the money coming from the privatisation of state owned asserts, and a glorious socialist state at that. Also kudos for calling out the Chechen atrocities but given who he has invited to parliament over the years, eg PLO and IRA, and his constant calls for dialogue between opposing parties it seems a funny thing to complain about trying to bring Putin in to the fold.
Perhaps he should go on RT/Russia Today again to avail us of his wisdom and how he would act if he were PM. I’d imagine it would something along the lines of being present but not involved……

That is one big pacifist blanky to throw over a number of distinct and complex wars.

Still think Boris is an unmitigated fuckwit and had little to do with strategy over and above the PR opportunity. He looked like he'd woken up after a stag do.

But Corbyn reaction to this conflict is exactly par for his politics.

Boris is a fuckwit

Mellsblue wrote:

morepork wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:https://www.stopwar.org.uk/article/list ... r-ukraine/

The amount of BS in the above, with him as lead signatory, is unreal. I could quote the most egregious parts but they’re blindingly obvious.
He’s completely wrong on this, as he was on the Salisbury poisonings. Kudos for calling out Russian money in The City but that’s probably mostly fuelled by it being The City and the money coming from the privatisation of state owned asserts, and a glorious socialist state at that. Also kudos for calling out the Chechen atrocities but given who he has invited to parliament over the years, eg PLO and IRA, and his constant calls for dialogue between opposing parties it seems a funny thing to complain about trying to bring Putin in to the fold.
Perhaps he should go on RT/Russia Today again to avail us of his wisdom and how he would act if he were PM. I’d imagine it would something along the lines of being present but not involved……

That is one big pacifist blanky to throw over a number of distinct and complex wars.

Still think Boris is an unmitigated fuckwit and had little to do with strategy over and above the PR opportunity. He looked like he'd woken up after a stag do.

Don’t worry, old bean. That is priced in.

Drinkies!

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:
Would Corbyn have taken so much Russian money and allowed so much influence in British politics so that Putin clearly felt he could act with impunity?

Puja

Would Corbyn have made it public that the letter of last resort to British nuclear submarine commanders would not have allowed for a retaliatory strike? Of course he would, he made his intention clear plenty of times. Putin could only have been encouraged by a Corbyn government that pushed Nato away, hobbled the strategic nuclear forces and would have swallowed his propaganda (based on Corbyns support for the stop the war folks).

Are you seriously suggesting that Corbyn would have deterred anyone?*

*Except to vote for him.

Fair points on the NATO and nuclear deterrent. I'm just mildly entertained that Russia is proposed an an area where Boris would be better than Corbyn, considering Corbyn was treated like a bit of a xenophobic weirdo for making noise about Russian money in British politics back in 2018 and has been protesting Putin's human rights outrages as far back as 2000 when Blair was granting him a royal visit. For someone who's turned out to be very right on the subject, it's odd that it's seen as a weakness.

Mind, I guess this is one area where Boris's mendaciousness and lack of any loyalty or shame has played in the UK's favour - I'd imagine the Kremlin possibly regarded him at one point as bought and paid for, in the same way Trump was, only to discover that Boris hasn't met a deal that he wouldn't welch on if it was populist enough to do so.

Puja

Corbyn would have made noises about any nationality of money. But given that he was warning about Russian abuses etc two decades ago, why is he hanging out with the Stop the War folks who are doing their best to make the situation as muddied as possible. Either Corbyn is failing to grasp details or he is in agreement. Eithet way it doesn’t demonstrate that he is fit to be a PM or that he would be handling this any better than Boris. Boris’ desire to be Churchillian is the right approach for this one (fortunately) as he doesn’t really go in for detailed strategy either.

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Would Corbyn have made it public that the letter of last resort to British nuclear submarine commanders would not have allowed for a retaliatory strike? Of course he would, he made his intention clear plenty of times. Putin could only have been encouraged by a Corbyn government that pushed Nato away, hobbled the strategic nuclear forces and would have swallowed his propaganda (based on Corbyns support for the stop the war folks).

Are you seriously suggesting that Corbyn would have deterred anyone?*

*Except to vote for him.

Fair points on the NATO and nuclear deterrent. I'm just mildly entertained that Russia is proposed an an area where Boris would be better than Corbyn, considering Corbyn was treated like a bit of a xenophobic weirdo for making noise about Russian money in British politics back in 2018 and has been protesting Putin's human rights outrages as far back as 2000 when Blair was granting him a royal visit. For someone who's turned out to be very right on the subject, it's odd that it's seen as a weakness.

Mind, I guess this is one area where Boris's mendaciousness and lack of any loyalty or shame has played in the UK's favour - I'd imagine the Kremlin possibly regarded him at one point as bought and paid for, in the same way Trump was, only to discover that Boris hasn't met a deal that he wouldn't welch on if it was populist enough to do so.

Puja

Corbyn would have made noises about any nationality of money. But given that he was warning about Russian abuses etc two decades ago, why is he hanging out with the Stop the War folks who are doing their best to make the situation as muddied as possible. Either Corbyn is failing to grasp details or he is in agreement. Eithet way it doesn’t demonstrate that he is fit to be a PM or that he would be handling this any better than Boris. Boris’ desire to be Churchillian is the right approach for this one (fortunately) as he doesn’t really go in for detailed strategy either.

You raise valid points - Corbyn is an ardent, intractable pacifist and, while that's highly laudable and has been proven right more than wrong over the past 25 years (Iraq and Libya springing immediately to mind), that kind of dogmatic inflexibility is not a good character trait in a Prime Minister, especially when facing a dedicated aggressive dickhead like Putin for whom peace was never an option. He would've been terrible in this situation and Johnson's Churchill tribute act is definitely better.

Having said that, I'm pretty sure that Corbyn would've done better on COVID, given that furlough pay was something he pushed for and the Tories were leaning more towards the Tim Martin model initially. Plus I would've trusted Corbyn to turn up to the COBRA meetings early in the crisis, that Johnson didn't feel like going to. And there would've been a significant amount less corruption in PPE and contracts, if only because all of the people who are into that have many more contacts in the Conservative party.

I'd also rate him better on the cost of living crisis, as the 2019 manifesto had a fairly significant Green New Deal bit in it which would've ameliorated the energy issue, and I don't doubt there would've been a windfall tax on the energy companies, assuming they were even still in private ownership by this point. That's not to mention that his premiership wouldn't have gone for the hardest of all possible Brexits to appease Steve Baker (even assuming they'd Brexited at all, given they'd be reliant on SNP and Lib Dem votes).

Corbyn had many, many faults, but I still hold to my opinion that he would've been better than Johnson. Mind, the very fact that you, someone who detests Corbyn, are at the stage where you're picking Johnson through gritted teeth is a condemnation of our current government. I don't see how Starmer can lose the next election from here, although I'm sure the British electorate are ready to disappoint me again.

Puja

Nice darts. Nice.

Pacifism has also proved to be wrong a lot of times, eg Syria and Crimea.

Yes, Corbyn took covid very seriously…. apart from when he didn’t:

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit ... s-5668872/

https://www.thenational.scot/news/18761 ... nner-nine/


Here is what would’ve happened had Corbyn won the election, obvs:

https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/a ... l-election

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:
Fair points on the NATO and nuclear deterrent. I'm just mildly entertained that Russia is proposed an an area where Boris would be better than Corbyn, considering Corbyn was treated like a bit of a xenophobic weirdo for making noise about Russian money in British politics back in 2018 and has been protesting Putin's human rights outrages as far back as 2000 when Blair was granting him a royal visit. For someone who's turned out to be very right on the subject, it's odd that it's seen as a weakness.

Mind, I guess this is one area where Boris's mendaciousness and lack of any loyalty or shame has played in the UK's favour - I'd imagine the Kremlin possibly regarded him at one point as bought and paid for, in the same way Trump was, only to discover that Boris hasn't met a deal that he wouldn't welch on if it was populist enough to do so.

Puja

Corbyn would have made noises about any nationality of money. But given that he was warning about Russian abuses etc two decades ago, why is he hanging out with the Stop the War folks who are doing their best to make the situation as muddied as possible. Either Corbyn is failing to grasp details or he is in agreement. Eithet way it doesn’t demonstrate that he is fit to be a PM or that he would be handling this any better than Boris. Boris’ desire to be Churchillian is the right approach for this one (fortunately) as he doesn’t really go in for detailed strategy either.

You raise valid points - Corbyn is an ardent, intractable pacifist and, while that's highly laudable and has been proven right more than wrong over the past 25 years (Iraq and Libya springing immediately to mind), that kind of dogmatic inflexibility is not a good character trait in a Prime Minister, especially when facing a dedicated aggressive dickhead like Putin for whom peace was never an option. He would've been terrible in this situation and Johnson's Churchill tribute act is definitely better.

Having said that, I'm pretty sure that Corbyn would've done better on COVID, given that furlough pay was something he pushed for and the Tories were leaning more towards the Tim Martin model initially. Plus I would've trusted Corbyn to turn up to the COBRA meetings early in the crisis, that Johnson didn't feel like going to. And there would've been a significant amount less corruption in PPE and contracts, if only because all of the people who are into that have many more contacts in the Conservative party.

I'd also rate him better on the cost of living crisis, as the 2019 manifesto had a fairly significant Green New Deal bit in it which would've ameliorated the energy issue, and I don't doubt there would've been a windfall tax on the energy companies, assuming they were even still in private ownership by this point. That's not to mention that his premiership wouldn't have gone for the hardest of all possible Brexits to appease Steve Baker (even assuming they'd Brexited at all, given they'd be reliant on SNP and Lib Dem votes).

Corbyn had many, many faults, but I still hold to my opinion that he would've been better than Johnson. Mind, the very fact that you, someone who detests Corbyn, are at the stage where you're picking Johnson through gritted teeth is a condemnation of our current government. I don't see how Starmer can lose the next election from here, although I'm sure the British electorate are ready to disappoint me again.

Puja

Hang on, Corbyn was as pro Brexit as any of the ERG.

And pacifism over Syria hasn’t helped anyone, least of all the Ukraine.

Economically the pressure would have been to nationalise everything and tax the rich. So on top of Brexit and pandemic concerns, we would have had the most wealthy disappear and tax their tax receipts with them and had the chaos of nationalisation across the board.

If Labour had a sensible leader at the last election then I wouldn’t have voted for Boris. Corbyn and his far left mates always put off centralist voters. Starmer I’m more comfortable with, even if some of his front bench are a nod to the Labour left.

I only have one question:

If Corbyn is/was far left, does that make Johnson fascist?

Or if Boris is simply conservative, is Corbyn just socialist?

Because I don’t think those terms mean what you think (not that they’re very good for today’s world).

Especially that the new normal is verging on far right…



As another aside, sorry Puja, but we just elected the Victator again…you can’t trust the electorate. The map was quite literally blue in Budapest and Orange everywhere else. Very, very sad.