RugbyRebels

Sandydragon wrote:

jared_7 wrote:Are the complaints around the compromise or the scale of the compromise?

I thought it was clearly the latter.

I seem to recall complaint about the Conservatives even taking to the DUP. As for the scale, do you think the SNP or PC would be less ambitious in their demands?

Thats not the point I made. Someone pointed out people were whinging about compromises being made, saying it was standard practice in negotiating to form a government - I don't think I've seen people arguing that point at all.

What I've read is the view £1bn is an awful lot of concessions for 8 MPs, especially against a backdrop of supposed austerity (which Fallon reemphasised the need for today, nonetheless). So there is money when its needed. In 2010, the Lib Dems brought almost 60 MPs to the table, an additional fifth on top of what the Tories had so its no surprise if they were to get more concessions.

I don't blame the DUP for ambition, that would be dumb. Once again, the discussion is over what the Tories gave them. I'm sure the EU are quaking in their boots after seeing what 8 unknown MPs from Northern Ireland were able to squeeze out of May.

Strong and Stable.

jared_7 wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

jared_7 wrote:Are the complaints around the compromise or the scale of the compromise?

I thought it was clearly the latter.

I seem to recall complaint about the Conservatives even taking to the DUP. As for the scale, do you think the SNP or PC would be less ambitious in their demands?

Thats not the point I made. Someone pointed out people were whinging about compromises being made, saying it was standard practice in negotiating to form a government - I don't think I've seen people arguing that point at all.

What I've read is the view £1bn is an awful lot of concessions for 8 MPs, especially against a backdrop of supposed austerity (which Fallon reemphasised the need for today, nonetheless). So there is money when its needed. In 2010, the Lib Dems brought almost 60 MPs to the table, an additional fifth on top of what the Tories had so its no surprise if they were to get more concessions.

I don't blame the DUP for ambition, that would be dumb. Once again, the discussion is over what the Tories gave them. I'm sure the EU are quaking in their boots after seeing what 8 unknown MPs from Northern Ireland were able to squeeze out of May.

Strong and Stable.

If what the DUP is bad but is going to happen there was nothing to stop Corbyn delivering 20 Labour votes for the Tories. Then the same things would happen, other than the DUP wouln't have gotten cash which isn't going to Cornwall or Wales or Scotland.

But the Tories accept doing the deal to secure their minority status, and Labout accept a deal being done they can score political points off.

jared_7 wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

jared_7 wrote:Are the complaints around the compromise or the scale of the compromise?

I thought it was clearly the latter.

I seem to recall complaint about the Conservatives even taking to the DUP. As for the scale, do you think the SNP or PC would be less ambitious in their demands?

Thats not the point I made. Someone pointed out people were whinging about compromises being made, saying it was standard practice in negotiating to form a government - I don't think I've seen people arguing that point at all.

What I've read is the view £1bn is an awful lot of concessions for 8 MPs, especially against a backdrop of supposed austerity (which Fallon reemphasised the need for today, nonetheless). So there is money when its needed. In 2010, the Lib Dems brought almost 60 MPs to the table, an additional fifth on top of what the Tories had so its no surprise if they were to get more concessions.

I don't blame the DUP for ambition, that would be dumb. Once again, the discussion is over what the Tories gave them. I'm sure the EU are quaking in their boots after seeing what 8 unknown MPs from Northern Ireland were able to squeeze out of May.

Strong and Stable.

Well, WT called it a bribe and my response, in the main, was to that. I was just pointing out that is how these things work and that, as I remember, nobody called the coalition deal a bribe. The Lib Dems may have brought more seats but then concessions to them cost a lot more than £1billion. All of those concessions were made based on a conservative manifesto based heavily on austerity.
The extra £1billion will be going to the NI assembly to spend, not just the 8 DUP MP's, to implement policies I'd assume you'd advocate for the 1.8 million people who live there. So, rather than be indignant about it, look at it as a win against the tyranny of austerity. The coalition government and the conservative majority govt both rowed back on the pace of austerity, because of concessions to Lib Dems and the Conservative back benches (and a few cabinet members), and nobody moaned about it then. The moans now are because it's the DUP - understandable - and because it props up a conservative government.

The DUP propping up a Conservative government. Wow.
It's amazing how the economic imperative of greed will justify just about anything........and if uncontested can continue for centuries.

'History is bunk' said Henry Ford,......but he's another that propped up a Nazi regime to make vast amounts of money.

Coming quick on the heels of Labour confirming their assurances they'd clear student debt actually meant they didn't know how big the debt was and they wouldn't do any such thing the team of all the talents surrounding Labour's Glorious Leader™ are busy now deleting previous posts praising Venezuela for showing that wealth can be shared and the poor matter, this after Venezuela spent the weekend killing some poor people and approving a more totalitarian approach.

Digby wrote:Coming quick on the heels of Labour confirming their assurances they'd clear student debt actually meant they didn't know how big the debt was and they wouldn't do any such thing the team of all the talents surrounding Labour's Glorious Leader™ are busy now deleting previous posts praising Venezuela for showing that wealth can be shared and the poor matter, this after Venezuela spent the weekend killing some poor people and approving a more totalitarian approach.

You think? There's still plenty who regard Chavez's model as the one to aim for; its all just gone a bit wrong. The really sad thing is that unlike many countries where socialism has been tried and failed, which have few natural resources and might have failed anyway, Venezuela has one of the most profitable natural resources going and its current problems are largely self inflicted.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Coming quick on the heels of Labour confirming their assurances they'd clear student debt actually meant they didn't know how big the debt was and they wouldn't do any such thing the team of all the talents surrounding Labour's Glorious Leader™ are busy now deleting previous posts praising Venezuela for showing that wealth can be shared and the poor matter, this after Venezuela spent the weekend killing some poor people and approving a more totalitarian approach.

You think? There's still plenty who regard Chavez's model as the one to aim for; its all just gone a bit wrong. The really sad thing is that unlike many countries where socialism has been tried and failed, which have few natural resources and might have failed anyway, Venezuela has one of the most profitable natural resources going and its current problems are largely self inflicted.

I don't doubt there are people who think Chavenomics remains a workable model, and if you have to kill a few people in the process, well they don't call them militant for no reason

Both the Soviet Union and Communist China killed millions so I don't think a dozen or so deaths here or there will register on their conscience. What is amazing is that so many people still hold to those ideals no matter how many times they fail.

I'd back aims to bring about less divergence in the allocation of resources, but I'd do that within a regulated market economy not much different to what we have now.

Corbyn showing like many of the greats he doesn't do, or at least get, irony. He's not wrong that Trump's comments on his naziesque supporters were woeful, but after his Corbyn's own piss weak comments on Venezuela he'd do better to keep his trap shut. The defence of the Glorious Leader™ is the specific actions in Venezuela and the USA aren't identical, and so require a different level of condemnation, and to a degree he's right, Venezuela is worse as it's the Venezuela State doing it.

Did May go far enough in failing to actually criticise Trump, instead saying simply there was no equivalency between the two groups?

Also whilst we've seemingly seen Trump's state visit to the UK kicked into the long grass its a little odd that's not being thrown in the government's face, you'd look an imbecile to stand up this week and say a man who at the very least gives the impression of supporting facism and racism warrants a visit, and a state visit would be even worse.

Corbyn could have made his attack on Trump at the governement's expense tbh rather than get charged himself with being a hypocrite.

Digby wrote: Also whilst we've seemingly seen Trump's state visit to the UK kicked into the long grass its a little odd that's not being thrown in the government's face, you'd look an imbecile to stand up this week and say a man who at the very least gives the impression of supporting facism and racism warrants a visit, and a state visit would be even worse.

Macron beat us to it.

Digby wrote:Did May go far enough in failing to actually criticise Trump, instead saying simply there was no equivalency between the two groups?

Also whilst we've seemingly seen Trump's state visit to the UK kicked into the long grass its a little odd that's not being thrown in the government's face, you'd look an imbecile to stand up this week and say a man who at the very least gives the impression of supporting facism and racism warrants a visit, and a state visit would be even worse.

Corbyn could have made his attack on Trump at the governement's expense tbh rather than get charged himself with being a hypocrite.

She is walking a tightrope with needing to keep the US onside whilst choking down the perfectly normal desire to call trump an utter cock.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Did May go far enough in failing to actually criticise Trump, instead saying simply there was no equivalency between the two groups?

Also whilst we've seemingly seen Trump's state visit to the UK kicked into the long grass its a little odd that's not being thrown in the government's face, you'd look an imbecile to stand up this week and say a man who at the very least gives the impression of supporting facism and racism warrants a visit, and a state visit would be even worse.

Corbyn could have made his attack on Trump at the governement's expense tbh rather than get charged himself with being a hypocrite.

She is walking a tightrope with needing to keep the US onside whilst choking down the perfectly normal desire to call trump an utter cock.

Such is diplomacy. We do comes across as pathetic in this instance, though I've little sympathy for May given how quickly we fawned and offered up a state visit.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Coming quick on the heels of Labour confirming their assurances they'd clear student debt actually meant they didn't know how big the debt was and they wouldn't do any such thing the team of all the talents surrounding Labour's Glorious Leader™ are busy now deleting previous posts praising Venezuela for showing that wealth can be shared and the poor matter, this after Venezuela spent the weekend killing some poor people and approving a more totalitarian approach.

You think? There's still plenty who regard Chavez's model as the one to aim for; its all just gone a bit wrong. The really sad thing is that unlike many countries where socialism has been tried and failed, which have few natural resources and might have failed anyway, Venezuela has one of the most profitable natural resources going and its current problems are largely self inflicted.

Venezuela doesn't have the most profitable natural resources. Their oil is of a very low quality which means there are more processing costs such that it needs a high oil price in order to be profitable.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Coming quick on the heels of Labour confirming their assurances they'd clear student debt actually meant they didn't know how big the debt was and they wouldn't do any such thing the team of all the talents surrounding Labour's Glorious Leader™ are busy now deleting previous posts praising Venezuela for showing that wealth can be shared and the poor matter, this after Venezuela spent the weekend killing some poor people and approving a more totalitarian approach.

You think? There's still plenty who regard Chavez's model as the one to aim for; its all just gone a bit wrong. The really sad thing is that unlike many countries where socialism has been tried and failed, which have few natural resources and might have failed anyway, Venezuela has one of the most profitable natural resources going and its current problems are largely self inflicted.

Venezuela doesn't have the most profitable natural resources. Their oil is of a very low quality which means there are more processing costs such that it needs a high oil price in order to be profitable.

Not a great justification for killing one's own citizens, frankly it puts one on a moral par with the Saudis

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
You think? There's still plenty who regard Chavez's model as the one to aim for; its all just gone a bit wrong. The really sad thing is that unlike many countries where socialism has been tried and failed, which have few natural resources and might have failed anyway, Venezuela has one of the most profitable natural resources going and its current problems are largely self inflicted.

Venezuela doesn't have the most profitable natural resources. Their oil is of a very low quality which means there are more processing costs such that it needs a high oil price in order to be profitable.

Not a great justification for killing one's own citizens, frankly it puts one on a moral par with the Saudis

What? I think you'll find that the blame for the deaths is rarely directly stated in the news, primarily because the majority of the deaths are not caused by the government security forces. The Western media only insinuates that the government is responsible for the deaths. Happy to be proved wrong if you can find evidence to support your assertion...

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Venezuela doesn't have the most profitable natural resources. Their oil is of a very low quality which means there are more processing costs such that it needs a high oil price in order to be profitable.

Not a great justification for killing one's own citizens, frankly it puts one on a moral par with the Saudis

What? I think you'll find that the blame for the deaths is rarely directly stated in the news, primarily because the majority of the deaths are not caused by the government security forces. The Western media only insinuates that the government is responsible for the deaths. Happy to be proved wrong if you can find evidence to support your assertion...

My bad, the honest government forces are only killing a smaller number, so it's all okay.

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
Not a great justification for killing one's own citizens, frankly it puts one on a moral par with the Saudis

What? I think you'll find that the blame for the deaths is rarely directly stated in the news, primarily because the majority of the deaths are not caused by the government security forces. The Western media only insinuates that the government is responsible for the deaths. Happy to be proved wrong if you can find evidence to support your assertion...

My bad, the honest government forces are only killing a smaller number, so it's all okay.

It's not okay. There's a lot of violence because of the crisis. But I do not see that the government is acting that much differently compared to how Western governments or Western-allied governments would if faced with a similar crisis and similar levels of extreme criminality.

Having read up on the economic policy of Venezuela, it seems very solid, despite recent inflation. I understand now why Goldman Sachs is buying up the cheap debt!!

Zhivago wrote:Having read up on the economic policy of Venezuela, it seems very solid, despite recent inflation. I understand now why Goldman Sachs is buying up the cheap debt!!

It's almost as if some Western economies are deliberately destabilising the region in order to exploit mineral assets that don't belong to them. Shirley, there's no precedent for that tactic.

kk67 wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Having read up on the economic policy of Venezuela, it seems very solid, despite recent inflation. I understand now why Goldman Sachs is buying up the cheap debt!!

It's almost as if some Western economies are deliberately destabilising the region in order to exploit mineral assets that don't belong to them. Shirley, there's no precedent for that tactic.

I wouldn't be surprised if it were the case, but then one can look around and see plenty of capitalist countries who try to destabilise each other. What the other countries might be doing isn't justification for the actions of Venezuela's government, and whilst there might be some solid elements to their economy taken as a whole it's basket case, their oil mayn't be top notch, but to go from that oil to people starving and an enormous black economy should be shaming to them.

Digby wrote:

kk67 wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Having read up on the economic policy of Venezuela, it seems very solid, despite recent inflation. I understand now why Goldman Sachs is buying up the cheap debt!!

It's almost as if some Western economies are deliberately destabilising the region in order to exploit mineral assets that don't belong to them. Shirley, there's no precedent for that tactic.

I wouldn't be surprised if it were the case, but then one can look around and see plenty of capitalist countries who try to destabilise each other. What the other countries might be doing isn't justification for the actions of Venezuela's government, and whilst there might be some solid elements to their economy taken as a whole it's basket case, their oil mayn't be top notch, but to go from that oil to people starving and an enormous black economy should be shaming to them.

Are people dying from starvation? There is possibly a food crisis and shortage, but it's being managed and there are handouts. People are starving in Africa as a result of capitalism. You'll not see comparable images coming out of Venezuela. I saw a video the other day of a Venezuelan complaining about lack of food... he looked very well nourished. In this recent report about food crises, Venezuela is not listed... so it seems to me that this narrative around starvation is just that... a conjured propaganda narrative that grossly exaggerates the situation regarding food insecurity.
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_uploa ... ses_v1.pdf

A lot of the protests are due to shortages of specific items, which cause a lot of distress when they are unavailable... things like napies, toilet paper etc. The sort of things that people really need... but there is no extreme food shortage. There is food distributed by the government... and you know what, the opposition gangs go around setting fire to the warehouses because the shortages and protests around those shortages further their aims to destabilise the government. Or they smuggle the subsidised food and other goods to neighbouring countries to sell at a profit.

And what's more... it is highly likely that the US is at play with covert actions at the least advising or training key members of these gangs. Obviously anything regarding a secret agency is speculation to some degree, but I would think the probability is high.

Zhivago wrote:
Are people dying from starvation? There is possibly a food crisis and shortage, but it's being managed and there are handouts. People are starving in Africa as a result of capitalism. You'll not see comparable images coming out of Venezuela. I saw a video the other day of a Venezuelan complaining about lack of food... he looked very well nourished. In this recent report about food crises, Venezuela is not listed... so it seems to me that this narrative around starvation is just that... a conjured propaganda narrative that grossly exaggerates the situation regarding food insecurity.
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_uploa ... ses_v1.pdf

A lot of the protests are due to shortages of specific items, which cause a lot of distress when they are unavailable... things like napies, toilet paper etc. The sort of things that people really need... but there is no extreme food shortage. There is food distributed by the government... and you know what, the opposition gangs go around setting fire to the warehouses because the shortages and protests around those shortages further their aims to destabilise the government. Or they smuggle the subsidised food and other goods to neighbouring countries to sell at a profit.

And what's more... it is highly likely that the US is at play with covert actions at the least advising or training key members of these gangs. Obviously anything regarding a secret agency is speculation to some degree, but I would think the probability is high.

Even were I to suppose to worst of the US in this it doesn't go close to justifying the actions in Venezuela. And yes people are starving, perhaps not to death yet, but certainly there's suffering and malnourishment.

If you want to praise a state run on socialist ideology that's fine, just find one worth praising. So far the number to chose from is zero, but you never know. The only thing being achieved in Venezuela is an ever increasing number of army generals to try and help a dictator maintain power, and that has nothing to do with anyone but Venezuela

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Coming quick on the heels of Labour confirming their assurances they'd clear student debt actually meant they didn't know how big the debt was and they wouldn't do any such thing the team of all the talents surrounding Labour's Glorious Leader™ are busy now deleting previous posts praising Venezuela for showing that wealth can be shared and the poor matter, this after Venezuela spent the weekend killing some poor people and approving a more totalitarian approach.

You think? There's still plenty who regard Chavez's model as the one to aim for; its all just gone a bit wrong. The really sad thing is that unlike many countries where socialism has been tried and failed, which have few natural resources and might have failed anyway, Venezuela has one of the most profitable natural resources going and its current problems are largely self inflicted.

Venezuela doesn't have the most profitable natural resources. Their oil is of a very low quality which means there are more processing costs such that it needs a high oil price in order to be profitable.

It was profitable, and that opportunity was wasted. Chavez and his mob have driven out all investment and completely screwed the country.