Bookies odds shifting in the Labour Leadership race

245

Comments

  • hansuehansue Posts: 14,227
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Your rapidly becoming my favourite poster on the politics forum as you've got Cameron, Osborne and the company they keep and type of support they court down to a tee!
    Their antics are shameful and I feel they've been shown to be despicable cowards on this issue.

    Could I ask you what you would do if you were Prime Minister. Its easy to sit at your keyboard blaming the Government and calling people you don't agree with despicable cowards if you are not prepared to come up with some constructive suggestions.

    At the moment the Government are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Its easy for the likes of Burnham and Cooper to ring their hands and say the Government should do more. They are not the ones that have to make decisions.
  • AlbacomAlbacom Posts: 34,578
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I haven't proclaimed myself to be intelligent but there are a number of your past posts on here were YOU tell me that you consider me to be intelligent.

    Actually political compliments aren't as cut and dry as you make out -I think a number of Conservative politicians over the years have shown political courage and I have no problem saying that despite the fact that I wouldn't vote for them ever.
    One example would be Norman Fowler who pushed through a controversial series of public health adverts in the 1980s when the HIV epidemic shrouded in stigma first emerged. He pressed ahead despite much opposition and the scepticism of Ms Thatcher. The adverts caused a backlash but we're judged to be hugely effective.

    Some might argue that Blair showed political courage with the Iraq war. Others might describe it as political suicide. You could argue that Cameron has shown political courage with his EU referendum - even though I have strong suspicions it will end up biting him on the arse. I actually do agree with you regarding Cooper. What she said needed saying and I am one Tory who believes we should start taking in genuine asylum seekers. I do however, believe it should be managed, considered and controlled with steady trickles of 10,000 at a time being processed and being supplied with temporary accommodation in ships or disused prisons until such a time they can be found suitable accommodation. You can't just house them at the expense of British people waiting to be housed but they do need warmth, shelter and the luxury of actually being somewhere. I would support these trickles of 10,000 to continue until we've given sanctuary to 100,000 migrants. But, there does also need to be a realistic cap because there will be another 100,000 afterwards, and another.

    I bet that revelation surprised you didn't it? You'll probably need a lie down now! :)
  • JayyKJayyK Posts: 423
    Forum Member
    Tom2023 wrote: »
    I've found the Left on here are always so angry, aggressive and genuinely don't seem to care about anyone or anything beyond blaming everything on cameron. They also don't seem to understand this is a refugee crisis created by the EU not having a coherent policy.

    That's rubbish and you know it. You've only posted this to get a reaction. Perhaps if Cameron wasn't such a bare faced lair people wouldn't attack him. It seems each week something lied about becomes public knowledge. I suspect the Tories will be glad that by 2020 he will be gone because after the EU referendum he will be toxic.

    Also I suspect you and a few others will bend over backwards to praise Cameron in a few days when he comes out and says 'Britain will do its fair share and take 40,000 migrants in. So really anything you say is pointless.


    And we haven't welcomed 100,000 of Syrian's here either. We have welcomed just over 200. That's why media outlets like The Sun are now up in arms at Cameron doing naff all.
  • Tom2023Tom2023 Posts: 2,059
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    We are part of the EU, a leading member were told and yet our contribution on this has been woefully inadequate.
    We are not morally taking our fair share and even some tory MP's are getting vocal about this now making this precise point.

    The left perfectly understand that this is a refugee crisis indeed a humanitarian crisis yet you'd never guess that Cameron had figured that out given how few we've offered to take in from the refugee camps.
    Don't tell me it's a refugee crisis that needs all European countries including the UK to take their fare share of the burden -tell Cameron.

    I find the above quite naive.

    Merkel runs the EU. No one farts in Brussels or Paris or Madrid or Rome without her say so.

    Although many posters have only just become interested in this crisis his crisis hasn't just happened this week. It has been simmering for nearly 3 years.

    The crisis has been made much worse this year by the EU not having any coherent policies for dealing with migrants once they enter the Schengen zone. merkel insists free movement is a non negotiable policy. Italy for its part just gives them train passes to France.

    The UK is not a member of the Schengen agreement. We can not fix it from outside.

    It is the UK government's policy to take the most vulnerable from the refugee camps. The UK gives about £10bn a year in foreign aid.

    Those people blaming Cameron are displaying their ignorance of the real situation.
  • Tom2023Tom2023 Posts: 2,059
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    JayyK wrote: »

    Also I suspect you and a few others will bend over backwards to praise Cameron in a few days when he comes out and says 'Britain will do its fair share and take 40,000 migrants in. So really anything you say is pointless.

    If you knew the first thing about the UK's policy on refugees you'd know the policy and numbers are always subject to review.

    Facts, they are utterly pointless to some people!
  • NihongaNihonga Posts: 10,618
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    wizzywick wrote: »
    What "courage" has Yvette shown over the migrant crisis? All she's done is say the UK should take in 10,000 Syrians. Hardly courageous!

    Or more accurately put: All she's done is do what Labour tends to do and pluck a number from out of the ether (how she came to the figure of 10,000, I don't know; how she is going to fund them, I don't know) and say the UK should take 10,000 Syrians. It's up there with the numbers of Polish people they said the UK will expect: 20,000 they said. 300,000 more like.

    Meh, why am I shocked? Labour, economics and maths were never good bedfellows. Das Kapital and Marxist theory is more their thing.
  • thenetworkbabethenetworkbabe Posts: 45,554
    Forum Member
    JayyK wrote: »
    She as a mother has spoken directly to other mothers and caused a mood change.

    Girl power

    She's been trying to combine sane policies, with pointing out how ridiculous Corbyn is, and trying to grab sub groups votes - she's been appealing on womens rights, the environment, union rights, and now immigration - while actually staying in the land of logical policies. She's placed to win, or at least be the sane leader, in exile, over the water.

    Burnham has flipped all over the place, but seems to have settled for being able to support Corbyn, but not his sillier policies - which is contradictory

    Cooper is playing modern politics but thats probably not bad when Corbyn has been playing the oldest political game in town n - offering bread and circuses to the poor , high taxes on everyone else and magical sources of income .He's even now fudging, or double fudging, issues as he learns what ones voters dislike most. And some people still claim he's new and genuine......
  • thenetworkbabethenetworkbabe Posts: 45,554
    Forum Member
    Nihonga wrote: »
    Or more accurately put: All she's done is do what Labour tends to do and pluck a number from out of the ether (how she came to the figure of 10,000, I don't know; how she is going to fund them, I don't know) and say the UK should take 10,000 Syrians. It's up there with the numbers of Polish people they said the UK will expect: 20,000 they said. 300,000 more like.

    Meh, why am I shocked? Labour, economics and maths were never good bedfellows. Das Kapital and Marxist theory is more their thing.

    She needs to be elected - half the people being polled by Labour are in favour of infinite immigration - she has to say something to try and get their vote . 10,000 is a serious, but reversible, and ultimately tolerable , number ,

    Much of the Llabour vote will still be attracted to Corbyn's waffle about moral duty to take in all 7 billion poeple who might ask to go somewhere nicer. But some will think doing more is enough , and wonder how much Corbyn's immigration would cost in votes, jobs and money.
  • HildaonplutoHildaonpluto Posts: 37,696
    Forum Member
    hansue wrote: »
    Could I ask you what you would do if you were Prime Minister. Its easy to sit at your keyboard blaming the Government and calling people you don't agree with despicable cowards if you are not prepared to come up with some constructive suggestions.

    At the moment the Government are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Its easy for the likes of Burnham and Cooper to ring their hands and say the Government should do more. They are not the ones that have to make decisions.

    Sorry but your attempt at implying that anyone who criticises the government is effectively a keyboard warrior mouthing off with ease as a way to make my criticism illegitmet is crass.

    By your definition Cooper and Burnham infact NO opposition politician can legitimately criticise the government as the retort oh it's alright for you can be levelled as a rebuttal.
    Yvette Cooper has laid out very specific policies on this issue and I concur with them.
    Cameron is only damned if he does and damned if he doesn't if his main concern is popularity rather than political leadership. Some issues are beyond being governed by short term popularity and this is one of them.
  • HildaonplutoHildaonpluto Posts: 37,696
    Forum Member
    Nihonga wrote: »
    Or more accurately put: All she's done is do what Labour tends to do and pluck a number from out of the ether (how she came to the figure of 10,000, I don't know; how she is going to fund them, I don't know) and say the UK should take 10,000 Syrians. It's up there with the numbers of Polish people they said the UK will expect: 20,000 they said. 300,000 more like.

    Meh, why am I shocked? Labour, economics and maths were never good bedfellows. Das Kapital and Marxist theory is more their thing.

    Recheck the news reports -Yvette has explained NUMEROUS times how she came up with the approximate figure of 10,000. You did watch the news reports were she explained what you claim she didn't explain didn't you....?
  • HildaonplutoHildaonpluto Posts: 37,696
    Forum Member
    Tom2023 wrote: »
    I find the above quite naive.

    Merkel runs the EU. No one farts in Brussels or Paris or Madrid or Rome without her say so.

    Although many posters have only just become interested in this crisis his crisis hasn't just happened this week. It has been simmering for nearly 3 years.

    The crisis has been made much worse this year by the EU not having any coherent policies for dealing with migrants once they enter the Schengen zone. merkel insists free movement is a non negotiable policy. Italy for its part just gives them train passes to France.

    The UK is not a member of the Schengen agreement. We can not fix it from outside.

    It is the UK government's policy to take the most vulnerable from the refugee camps. The UK gives about £10bn a year in foreign aid.

    Those people blaming Cameron are displaying their ignorance of the real situation.

    Sorry to shock you but I was already fully aware of all of the above, none of your response addresses the issue of why are humanitarian response in terms of taking a decent number of refugees is so woeful.. We've already taken a small number of refugees so we know how to intervene to help if we want to. We don't need EU approval.
  • MajlisMajlis Posts: 31,362
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Sorry to shock you but I was already fully aware of all of the above,none of your response addresses the issue of why are humanitarian response in terms of taking a decent number of refugees is so woeful.

    what sort of figure do you have in mind on an ongoing yearly basis for admitting refugees?
  • HildaonplutoHildaonpluto Posts: 37,696
    Forum Member
    wizzywick wrote: »
    Some might argue that Blair showed political courage with the Iraq war. Others might describe it as political suicide. You could argue that Cameron has shown political courage with his EU referendum - even though I have strong suspicions it will end up biting him on the arse. I actually do agree with you regarding Cooper. What she said needed saying and I am one Tory who believes we should start taking in genuine asylum seekers. I do however, believe it should be managed, considered and controlled with steady trickles of 10,000 at a time being processed and being supplied with temporary accommodation in ships or disused prisons until such a time they can be found suitable accommodation. You can't just house them at the expense of British people waiting to be housed but they do need warmth, shelter and the luxury of actually being somewhere. I would support these trickles of 10,000 to continue until we've given sanctuary to 100,000 migrants. But, there does also need to be a realistic cap because there will be another 100,000 afterwards, and another.

    I bet that revelation surprised you didn't it? You'll probably need a lie down now! :)

    I'm definitely due a lie down after reading that!! ;-):D

    Although in truth I've known for a while your a hybrid of a good one nation tory and a hard harsh right wing thatcherite -today you've showcased your one nation tory side! :)
  • mark e amark e a Posts: 2,261
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm sorry but Cooper is doing classic Tory lite.

    Let 10,000 in rather than a few hundred. 200 - 10000 in the grand scheme of things its not that different.
  • HildaonplutoHildaonpluto Posts: 37,696
    Forum Member
    Majlis wrote: »
    what sort of figure do you have in mind on an ongoing yearly basis for admitting refugees?
    You can't plan ahead in that way but the burden has to be fairly shared across the EU. No one could argue that's the case atm when you see how much Germany has done refugee wise.

    Setting an arbitary cap is silly given we could have major unpredictable natural disasters or wars.

    Historically speaking the number of refugees were taking in is quite low. Let's not conflate asylum with immigration numbers which are much bigger.
  • MajlisMajlis Posts: 31,362
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    You can't plan ahead in that way but the burden has to be fairly shared across the EU. No one could argue that's the case atm when you see how much Germany has done refugee wise.

    But you are not comparing like with like - Germanys response is not entirely altruistic. Unlike the UK, Germany has a declining population (ours is growing rapidly with all the problems that causes) so has an economic incentive to increase its migration.

    As another poster has already pointed out there are around 10 civil wars going on around the world at the moment and I am sure than when these finish more will flare up to take their place - given that is it not prudent to set a reasonable fixed year on year target?
  • NihongaNihonga Posts: 10,618
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Recheck the news reports -Yvette has explained NUMEROUS times how she came up with the approximate figure of 10,000. You did watch the news reports were she explained what you claim she didn't explain didn't you....?

    Stating the following - "“If every city took 10 refugee families, if every London borough took 10 families, if every county council took 10 families, if Scotland, Wales and every English region played their part, then in a month we’d have nearly 10,000 more places for vulnerable refugees fleeing danger, seeking safety.” - is STILL plucking numbers from out the dumb air. Saying if, if, if is not the way come to a viable figure that works, that doesn't make local council feel even more financial and social strain. What if not every region English region/London borough/every county council can take 10 families? Hell, these local governments can't even find who social housing for the people who are already on their lists. It is merely a way of making 10,000 a more palatable figure for the UK public to swallow. "Oh, it's only 10 families". Honest to God, if that is the way Labour, and in particular Cooper, wishes to run this country, then good luck to the fools who vote for her and them.
  • HildaonplutoHildaonpluto Posts: 37,696
    Forum Member
    Majlis wrote: »
    But you are not comparing like with like - Germanys response is not entirely altruistic. Unlike the UK, Germany has a declining population (ours is growing rapidly with all the problems that causes) so has an economic incentive to increase its migration.

    As another poster has already pointed out there are around 10 civil wars going on around the world at the moment and I am sure than when these finish more will flare up to take their place - given that is it not prudent to set a reasonable fixed year on year target?

    I think you mean limit not target and no I don't think such a policy instrument is necessary if you share the load across nations.

    Just goes to show how important international development departments work is especially conflict prevention /resolution work.
  • vauxhall1964vauxhall1964 Posts: 10,334
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    You can't plan ahead in that way but the burden has to be fairly shared across the EU..

    Why does it? Why should countries that have stayed well out of the mess that is the Middle East be expected to clear up the mess and change their societies for ever with mass immigration from places like Syria? The EU didn't invade Iraq and trigger this whole catastrophe. America did. These refugees should all be shipped off to the land of George W Bush, the moron who engineered the collapse of Iraq and the birth of ISIS.
  • Under SoulUnder Soul Posts: 2,989
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I've warmed to Cooper a bit - since we can't get Liz, I'd be pretty pleased if she gets in. I would despise it if the sinister Corbyn got in. I know he wouldn't be PM but his anti semitic views will prove to be divisive and the less said about the economy under him the better.

    Plus he'd promote the dreadful Diane Abbott.
  • HildaonplutoHildaonpluto Posts: 37,696
    Forum Member
    Why does it? Why should countries that have stayed well out of the mess that is the Middle East be expected to clear up the mess and change their societies for ever with mass immigration from places like Syria? The EU didn't invade Iraq and trigger this whole catastrophe. America did. These refugees should all be shipped off to the land of George W Bush, the moron who engineered the collapse of Iraq and the birth of ISIS.

    We acquiesced in the collapse of Iraq and Libya. We've caused problems in the middle east and aren't neutral bystanders.

    Arbitary targets aren't necessary if we share the burden and work more on conflict prevention as a community
  • AlbacomAlbacom Posts: 34,578
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    We acquiesced in the collapse of Iraq and Libya. We've caused problems in the middle east and aren't neutral bystanders.

    Arbitary targets aren't necessary if we share the burden and work more on conflict prevention as a community

    Iraq under Blair and Bush and Libya under Cameron and the French are two of this country's biggest f**kups. I make no excuses for saying that. Are they totally to blame? Of course not. The regimes running these countries were absolutely abhorrent.

    When you read many of the posts on these politics threads (mainly from the left - and I mean this as no insult - please read on and you'll see what I mean), you read lots of compassion, sentiment and genuine desires to make things better for people. That is a trait of the West. We have this belief that how we live is how everyone should live. It's all well intentioned and with the right principles at heart, but we never really consider whether the people we claim to be helping, want to be helped. When you think about it, we (the west) have disturbed a hornets nest. By failing to consider the consequences, or underestimating the sheer power of Islam, we made the situation much worse than it otherwise could have been. But herein lies the terrible dilemma all our PM's have had to face. Kosovo, Iraq, Libya and so on: do nothing and let the regimes murder millions of innocent civilians? Or intervene and start a possible irreversible instability of the area causing people to flee for their lives from perscutors or self appointed Governments destined to cleanse their nations from people who don't fit into their criteria.

    I hate to say it but I believe the only way to solve this problem is for a world war. We can't just eradicate the problem by watching the migrants - we either condemn them or support them. To condemn them would certainly satisfy many back benchers and a good deal of the electorate. To support them would give them and us a far better chance of ridding their countries from the evil that resides there. We would theoretically create allies. I'm not advocating an agreement to unlimited migrants (I've already specified my viewpoint on this earlier), but I do feel that whether you like Cameron or not, he is spot on when he says you won't solve this problem by just taking in unlimited numbers of migrants. To eradicate the problem, we need to put right the mess we all made. As I say it was a well intentioned mess but severely ill judged.

    We also need to help the young men who are fleeing to have faith and loyalty towards their country. We must assist them in making their country a safe place to live. If that means ground troops and air attacks, then I'm sorry to say, so be it. One thing is certain, things can not, and must not, continue in the way it is.
  • HildaonplutoHildaonpluto Posts: 37,696
    Forum Member
    wizzywick wrote: »
    Iraq under Blair and Bush and Libya under Cameron and the French are two of this country's biggest f**kups. I make no excuses for saying that. Are they totally to blame? Of course not. The regimes running these countries were absolutely abhorrent.

    When you read many of the posts on these politics threads (mainly from the left - and I mean this as no insult - please read on and you'll see what I mean), you read lots of compassion, sentiment and genuine desires to make things better for people. That is a trait of the West. We have this belief that how we live is how everyone should live. It's all well intentioned and with the right principles at heart, but we never really consider whether the people we claim to be helping, want to be helped. When you think about it, we (the west) have disturbed a hornets nest. By failing to consider the consequences, or underestimating the sheer power of Islam, we made the situation much worse than it otherwise could have been. But herein lies the terrible dilemma all our PM's have had to face. Kosovo, Iraq, Libya and so on: do nothing and let the regimes murder millions of innocent civilians? Or intervene and start a possible irreversible instability of the area causing people to flee for their lives from perscutors or self appointed Governments destined to cleanse their nations from people who don't fit into their criteria.

    I hate to say it but I believe the only way to solve this problem is for a world war. We can't just eradicate the problem by watching the migrants - we either condemn them or support them. To condemn them would certainly satisfy many back benchers and a good deal of the electorate. To support them would give them and us a far better chance of ridding their countries from the evil that resides there. We would theoretically create allies. I'm not advocating an agreement to unlimited migrants (I've already specified my viewpoint on this earlier), but I do feel that whether you like Cameron or not, he is spot on when he says you won't solve this problem by just taking in unlimited numbers of migrants. To eradicate the problem, we need to put right the mess we all made. As I say it was a well intentioned mess but severely ill judged.

    We also need to help the young men who are fleeing to have faith and loyalty towards their country. We must assist them in making their country a safe place to live. If that means ground troops and air attacks, then I'm sorry to say, so be it. One thing is certain, things can not, and must not, continue in the way it is.

    To be fair to Cameron I think he was sincere and honest over Libya whereas I believe that over Iraq Blair was a true believer but insincere and dishonest using all kinds of ruses and tactics to get public support onside.

    Sorting Syria out in terms of ground troops etc and engaging in warfare is a highly complex matter as it's not just a civil war between ISIS and the country's brutal dictator who's suspected of past genocide but other warring factions too. It's basically a 4-5 way civil war and sorting it out seems like an intractable nightmare. The long established delicate balance that once was Syria is now dangerously fragmenting -Perhaps it can't be put back together anytime soon.
    I'm not saying we shouldn't intervene but I think we mustn't underestimate how careful we have to be and must realise that military intervention may make it worse. Put bluntly the fact ISIS has grown so strong is a political failure of the region and of the West too.

    As for refugees I welcome those Syrians who clearly OPPOSE Islamic extremism and are fleeing it and I contrast that with the British citizens who seemingly are flying into Syria to join ISIS while millions of their Muslim brothers and sisters are fleeing to get away from Syria.
    I welcome the former in manageable numbers and I say with some sorrow(concerning the children being taken by their parents) good riddance to the latter. I will always welcome moderates over extremists in any situation.
  • HildaonplutoHildaonpluto Posts: 37,696
    Forum Member
    Tom2023 wrote: »
    I've found the Left on here are always so angry, aggressive and genuinely don't seem to care about anyone or anything beyond blaming everything on cameron. They also don't seem to understand this is a refugee crisis created by the EU not having a coherent policy.

    It's a refugee crisis caused by a war in Syria. The EU didn't cause the Syrian war.
    Without freedom of movement within the EU then ALL of these refugees would be just 2 countries Italy and Greece and that would be an even worse and more iniquitous situation.
    Yes the distribution of refugees throughout Europe needs to be more balanced but the refugee crisis origin lies in war not EU policy. The problem of how Europe shares the burden of refugees is a problem in its own right. It's a symptom of the refugee crisis not the cause. Even if the distribution of refugees was gotten right throughout Europe we'd still have a refugee crisis because there's a massive humanitarian disaster in Syria that people are fleeing.
  • bozzimacoobozzimacoo Posts: 1,135
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    JayyK wrote: »
    She as a mother has spoken directly to other mothers and caused a mood change.

    Girl power

    you having a laugh?

    day after day the news and crews are hanging out with migrants, dear yvee was not in my mind one bit.
Sign In or Register to comment.