Anything Political

[catfan 14,795]

Sounds like I touched s nerve.

When was the BBC Tory biased.

Far too woke in replacing white faces with black faces.

I wouldn't mind if the best candidate got the job but they didn't.

The BBC woke bias is obvious to a blind man.

I would love to see how long the BBC survive standing on their own two feet.

Wokeism is destroying this country.

[Mess 632]

I hope Boris has sent a thank you card to Jeremy Corbyn whilst he fights for survival.

If JC hadn't screwed up the Labour Party with his brainless left wing cronies they might have been able to mount a decent opposition. As it is this government will be able to do what it wants for years to come with or without Boris.

I'm not a socialist but think Boris has made a mess of things. Perhaps his successor will get things back under control but I have my doubts such is the weakness of the opposition.

[philmayfield 6,273]

Corbyn and his left wing were a liability to the Labour Party at the election. The choice was between the lesser of two evils, I never rated Boris highly. Starmer comes over as a 'non person' with neither charm, humour nor personality. Politics fails to attract the best people as they can earn more in business or commerce. I'm sure Boris won't be too upset to be thrown out. He could earn far more in the media.

[Jill Sparrow 10,398]

Anything is better than Po-faced Putin and the satanic-visaged Xi Jinping!

 

At least we can say our politicians are akin to a bag of **** . They might be scum but they are reasonably fairly elected scum.

 

 

[DJ360 6,759]

1 hour ago, catfan said:

Sounds like I touched s nerve.

 

I'd suggest it is very debateable who touched who's nerves.

 

1 hour ago, catfan said:

When was the BBC Tory biased.

 

How long have you got?  I could fill a page just by quoting Kuennsberg, and it is an open secret that most of the BBCs major political/news staff are either openly Tory, or have strong associations.  same goes for their senior management.  It is undeniable. However, they rarely (apart from Kuenssberg and even she has learned..) , deliver overtly pro Tory messages.  They just fail to ask the right questions on a regular basis. Even now, with Johnson on the ropes, they are not joining the dots. When he goes, there will just be another, less accident prone replacement..though given the front runners at present ......  More to the point, whilst 'partygate'  continues, the Tories are still pushing through their far right, anti-democratic legislation agenda...almost unnoticed, and almost unreported by the BBC.

What you and many others fail to see is the distinction between the BBCs socially and culturally liberal  stance, and the relatively easy political ride it gives Govt. Also, the BBC may be culturally and Socially 'liberal' in that it does not supress information or discussion of the issues, either in documentary, or via Arts programming, but it is not pushing what you ( incorrectly) describe as a 'woke' agenda.

2 hours ago, catfan said:

Far too woke in replacing white faces with black faces.

I wouldn't mind if the best candidate got the job but they didn't.

The BBC woke bias is obvious to a blind man.

 

Now we are getting down to it. You've never hidden the fact that you are very (small 'c') conservative in your outlook on numerous social and cultural issues. All you've done is replaced the use  pejorative use of 'political correctness', with the pejorative use of 'woke' , as you join the rest of the right in trying to turn progressive notions against those who originated and first adopted them. 

 

Woke is a term which has origins in the early 20th Century, and Political Correctness is also much older than you probably think. Political Correctness was used by the Nazis...so it is easy to see how the term can be adopted by anyone who wants to define, and impose their views of what is 'acceptable'. However, in modern usage Political Correctness simply meant the use of actions and language sensitive to minorities.

Of course it wasn't long before the right wing started using it pejoratively, in attempts to ridicule any move to change the status quo.  The political and cultural Right continue to do so.

 

The story is similar with 'Woke', where the right wing now uses this alternative term to try to resist change and ridicule those who work for it.

 

Of course  your assertion that the BBC is somehow 'driven' by 'Woke Culture' (There is no such thing) is more your perception, driven by your disquiet, than it is in any way factual. To prove your case, you are going to have to come up with not only  numbers, but also clear evidence of motivations and bias in recruitment.  Good luck with that.  And of course you can easily spot 'black' faces.   So..how many are too many and who do you think they replaced, or kept out?

Of course it gets a bit harder when dealing with 'whites'. But maybe you should look into how many are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Gay, Straight, Socialist etc.

Heaven forfend that the BBC should reflect changing demograhics, society and culture.

[DJ360 6,759]

58 minutes ago, philmayfield said:

Politics fails to attract the best people as they can earn more in business or commerce.

 

That is not the reason. Rees Mogg, Johnson, Sunak and even that joke Farage, are all wealthy enough to do very well without playing politics. It really isn't about pay for these types, or at least it isn't about their MP/Minister salary. It is about their maintenance of the Status Quo, or even increasing their privelege and position, by keeing the rest down. Why else are they legislating to limit protest, to make voting more difficult and to limit the ability of our independent judiciary to force Govt. to act within the law?

[Brew 5,480]

Col your dislike is distorting your view of Johnson.  He may have lied and finagled his way to the top, but denigrating his success is denial of what was, at the end of the day, a stunning victory.  

You also ignore the blindingly obvious. Pushing against an open door certainly, but there is a huge element you fail to mention; Corbyn.

With his persistent fence sitting, refusal to commit, dubious political sympathies and just plain stupid policies he was a major contributor to Labour votes falling off a cliff.

-------------------------

Boris did not 'lead' the vaccine roll out...  that was the NHS. Boris did not 'lead us through the pandemic'.  He was dragged, kicking and screaming..into acting..mostly too little and too late.

And now.. in order to save his own skin by placating the far right of a far right party, he is scrapping virtually all Covid restrictions..against scientific advice.

 

A little churlish there Col. The WHO declared Covid-19 a pandemic on the 11th of March. Within 4 days, on the 16th, Johnson started actions to limit unnecessary travel. Ordered lockdown on the 23rd and it became law on the 26th. I can’t remember if we were the 2nd or 3rd to lockdown, nor can I see how it could have been done faster.

 

The first vaccine in the world was 97% funded by the taxpayer...

Are the latest actions contrary to scientific advice? It’s a question of seek and ye shall find, some will say yes, some will say no.

I’m not a great fan but I can’t think of anyone who could have done better. Credit where credit is due.

-------------------------------------

I've een critical of the BBC for 'Tory Bias' and I stand by that, but only in their political coverage.

 

Is the BBC biased to the left or right?  Judgement by the questions asked or not asked is, to say the least, a highly subjective way to form an opinion.

A survey seems to indicate the majority don’t think there is bias to any great degree  and are 'generally neutral'.

 

Labour voters are 'generally neutral' or 'don’t know'.

 

Conservatives, by a narrow margin think it favours the left, the ‘don’t knows’  are only a few points behind.

 

Overall the majority don’t know and believing the BBC is neutral being the second most commonly held view.

Another interpretation of course is that most don’t care so long as they don’t stop Corro!

 

There’s more:-

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/is-the-bbc-more-favourable-towards-labour-the-left-or-the-conservatives-the-right?crossBreak=conservative

 

[radfordred 6,284]

I hope Boris stays as PM you cannot dismiss his love & patriotism for our country, something I found missing from the Labour Party I voted for.

 

[DJ360 6,759]

9 hours ago, Brew said:

Col your dislike is distorting your view of Johnson.  He may have lied and finagled his way to the top, but denigrating his success is denial of what was, at the end of the day, a stunning victory.  

You also ignore the blindingly obvious. Pushing against an open door certainly, but there is a huge element you fail to mention; Corbyn.

With his persistent fence sitting, refusal to commit, dubious political sympathies and just plain stupid policies he was a major contributor to Labour votes falling off a cliff.

-------------------------

 

Jim, you really need to understand that my view of Johnson is not distorted. It is clear, logical and fixed.  The man has a lifelong history of lying, sense of entitlement, ambition to be 'World King' (His own words) and he's also not above bullying and threatening. ALL of the above is clearly documented and beyond dispute.  Why would anyone, much less an intelligent man such as you, expect him to change  when gifted the power he has always craved?

As for Corbyn, only very recently some BBC hack has finally admitted that the Anti Semitism allegations against Corbyn were totally without foundation.  I'll give you his dithering over Brexit and his poor style of leadership, but much of the perceived 'problem' with Corbyn was an entirely manufactured image relentlessly pushed by a far right which was genuinely scared of him, and not for the sake of the country, but for themselves.  I will not accept that his policies were in any way extreme and nor were his spending plans. In fact I'd have thought you'd have noticed that the  present crooks have taken  profligacy to new heights, and yet still manage to punish the poorest in society.

 

9 hours ago, Brew said:

A little churlish there Col. The WHO declared Covid-19 a pandemic on the 11th of March. Within 4 days, on the 16th, Johnson started actions to limit unnecessary travel. Ordered lockdown on the 23rd and it became law on the 26th. I can’t remember if we were the 2nd or 3rd to lockdown, nor can I see how it could have been done faster.

 

Jim, anyone who was awake was aware of Covid and its spread in China from January 2020

 

I last went in a pub on the 23rd of Feb 2020.,   whilst returning from the Bristol Hi Fi Show. I was already well aware of the threat by then and it was already present here, though in very small numbers.

 

This 'timeline', might remind you that everyone except, seemingly Boris Johnson, was already aware long before he bothered himself with it. He was so 'on it', he couldn't even be arsed to attend COBRA meetings, and publicly wandered about shaking hands with Covid victims.

He was, is and always will be, a pillock. (At least)

 

Also, after the mercifully short but utterly bizarre period when 'Herd Immunity' was seriously considered and testing abandoned.. he casually announced that we were all going to have to be prepared to lose a lot of relatives.  What an utter t**t.

 

OK, I'll give him the benefit, by not making him personally responsible for the failure of a 10 year long Tory Ascendency to note and act upon reports which recommended better planning for a coming pandemic... and consistently undermining and underfunding the NHS.  Many NHS staff died as a direct result of these failures. You are defending the indefensible.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_Kingdom_(January–June_2020)

 

9 hours ago, Brew said:

The first vaccine in the world was 97% funded by the taxpayer...

 

And your point?  That had little or nothing to do with Johnson.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford–AstraZeneca_COVID-19_vaccine#Clinical_trials

 

I watched a TV programme about that.  I don't recall all detail.. but it is clear that the real heroes were those who pushed on with stages of development which would not normally go ahead until results of earlier stages were known. That has nothing to do with vaccine safety..the only risk was to the company doing the work, because their funding was 'at risk', by them moving ahead so fast, in the hope that their previous stages would support the work they had moved on to.   These people were not weighing political advantage etc.. they just wanted to save lives.

 

I won't go on to Johnson's complete cock up at Christmas 2020, which led..as predicted by many, to a huge spike in infections and deaths early in 2021.

 

The man is a bloody liability..not just to the Tory Party, but to our country.

 

I won't get into BBC now, but you know as well as me that BBC is  frightened to oppose the Tories because they, as opposed to Labour, hate anything Govt. funded that they can't slice off a cash share of.

 

 

 

 

 

[Brew 5,480]

Col, your diatribe has missed the point,  and from the start I accept you're never going to admit he did anything worthwhile.

 Remember my post is purely about his response to covid, so dragging everything else into the discussion, merely muddies the waters. I acknowledge his faults and have said so more than once.

 

My point is that up till the time he started acting on Covid there were only 23 confirmed cases  in the UK, i.e., the pandemic had not yet arrived here.  There would be an outcry of unacceptable, incompetent and many more names had he ordered a lockdown on so few cases. No other government did either.

You are also well aware of previous scares, Ebola, SARS, MERS etc. threats that promised to sweep the through the population yet didn't.

Had the government of the day panicked and gone into lockdown back then there would have been a huge outcry about the cost and disruption when it turned out to be a damp squib.

 

I, like many others and probably Boris, did not think it too serious and continued about by business. Keep calm and carry on attitude.

I once accused you of panicking about it, but history has proved me wrong, and you right. Ain't hindsight wonderful.

 

At the end of the Hi-fi show you mentioned (13 cases at that time) it was only four weeks before we were in lockdown. With your respect of parliamentary procedure and following rules, I thought you might recognise that's pretty bloody quick by Westminster standards. It was law and as such had to be proposed, debated, passed to the upper house etc. It gained royal assent in two days.

 

I should also point out Boris did not recommend herd immunity, he quashed the idea after two advisors (Whitty and Valance), suggested it as a possibility. It was in my opinion quite right that the question was raised,  all foreseeable scenarios and options should be considered. How could anyone make an informed decision otherwise? Just because something is unpalatable does not automatically rule it out.

 

The TV programme concentrated on the process and people involved in the creating the vaccine, however it would be naive in the extreme to imagine Johnson was not consulted on the cost to the Treasury before they gained the funding.

 

You really can't compare elections spending promises with something as unprecedented as this.

 

I don't really want to discuss Corbyn, but he was the one slapped down by his own Labour mandarins when he tried to change the party's declaration on Anti-Semitism.  Personally, I believe him to be anti-Semitic.

 

Johnson may have been somewhat insensitive when he said we were going to lose a lot of relatives,  but – was he wrong?

 

All this is merely to recognise what he's done for Covid. A lot of what you say about him I tend to agree with, though in somewhat less vitriolic terms, but given the length of time he's actually sat in the hot seat, in this instance he's  done OK.

Even the mad, bad and dangerous sometimes get things right.

 

[letsavagoo 968]

Your quote Col.

As for Corbyn, only very recently some BBC hack has finally admitted that the Anti Semitism allegations against Corbyn were totally without foundation.

 

October 2020 The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) investigation identified serious failings in leadership of the Labour Party and an inadequate process of handling anti-Semitism complaints.

Keir Starmer said "anyone claiming there is no anti-Semitism in the Labour Party is wrong" but added that "the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media".

Was it not this in that led to Jezza being thrown out of the party.

[letsavagoo 968]

Darren George Henry MP for Broxtow has set the bar

claiming £280,000 in expenses claims. And yes Col, he’s a Tory. 

[DJ360 6,759]

On 1/21/2022 at 7:47 PM, letsavagoo said:

October 2020 The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) investigation identified serious failings in leadership of the Labour Party and an inadequate process of handling anti-Semitism complaints.

Keir Starmer said "anyone claiming there is no anti-Semitism in the Labour Party is wrong" but added that "the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media".

Was it not this in that led to Jezza being thrown out of the party.

 

That's probably about the size of it, but the worst that Corbyn is accused of there is poor management. I've already agreed he was a poor leader. That doesn't make him anti -semitic. It simply beggars belief that Corbyn, who has spent a lifetime fighting prejudice of all kinds, should be personally Anti Semitic.  He makes no secret of his opposition to Israeli Policy towards Palestine, but again..that is not Anti Semitic. There are plenty of Israelis, Jews and others, who oppose Israeli Govt Policy.

 

Inherent in your quote is the perennial issue of untangling 'anti Israeli Govt. Policy', from Anti Semitism. And events in Manchester around that time clearly demonstrated that a section of the Jewish population of Manchester were very willing to characterise ANY criticism of Israel Govt. Policy as 'Anti-Semitism'.  

[DJ360 6,759]

On 1/21/2022 at 3:59 AM, Brew said:

Col, your diatribe

 

It would be helpful if you stopped describing my considered and closely argued posts as 'diatribes'.

 

On 1/21/2022 at 3:59 AM, Brew said:

you're never going to admit he did anything worthwhile.

 

When he does..I will.

 

On 1/21/2022 at 3:59 AM, Brew said:

You are also well aware of previous scares, Ebola, SARS, MERS etc. threats that promised to sweep the through the population yet didn't.

Had the government of the day panicked and gone into lockdown back then there would have been a huge outcry about the cost and disruption when it turned out to be a damp squib.

 

 

 

Jim, you are casting around for 'what if' defences of a Govt. which was caught napping both in terms of immediate actions, and longer term  preparedness.

 

All of the above outbreaks were always well contained and with the exception of Ebola, resulted in very few deaths as a ratio of infections.

It was clear from news emerging from China that Covid 19 was much more deadly and affecting a much wider section of the population.  I don't recall being especially concerned by SARS, MERS or 'Swine Flu'. (The latter was seemingly partly mediated by previous flu infection/vaccination..and was of course not a Coronavirus. The 'standard' Flu vax included protection against H1N1 in later years.)

 

So no.. sorry, no excuses. Johnson reeatedly ignored warnings, was slow to act and whenhe did was too late, too vague etc.

 

On 1/21/2022 at 3:59 AM, Brew said:

You really can't compare elections spending promises with something as unprecedented as this.

 

Johnson and Corbyn engaged in an election 'Spending Promises War'.

Re: Corbyn and   Anti Semitism.  See my reply to Letsav, above.

[letsavagoo 968]

I realise that there is no way you will change your view on this subject but to believe the Corbyn is not anti Semitic, even a little bit is simply deluded. 
 

[DJ360 6,759]

Letsav,

You prove nothing by simply asserting that my views are 'deluded'. You need to provide concrete evidence that Corbyn acted in demonstrably anti Semitic ways, and as far as I am concerned, nobody has done so. There is a clear qualitatve difference between Corbyn's 'management' of anti Semitism issues within Labour, and whether he is personally anti Semitic.

 

Whether there was anti semitism in the Labour Party?  I'm quite sure there was, ..just as there is  also Islamophobia, Misogyny, Racism, Sexism and the rest. All of those 'isms', are endemic within society and ALL political parties.

[DJ360 6,759]

On 1/21/2022 at 3:59 AM, Brew said:

I don't really want to discuss Corbyn, but he was the one slapped down by his own Labour mandarins when he tried to change the party's declaration on Anti-Semitism.  Personally, I believe him to be anti-Semitic.

 

That is not my recall.  As I  remember, Corbyn was not willing to accept a declaration on anti Semitism which emanated from sections of the Jewish Community, including some groups which are known to be right wing.(Let's be honest here..Israel's Govt. is right wing, as is Zionism)

Corbyn objected, as do I, and as did many within Labour, to the inclusion in the declaration, of words to the effect that criticism of Israeli Govt. Policy automatically amounted to Anti-Semitism. That was frankly exactly the sort of thinking which Hitler's lot employed against all of their detractors.  In other words, if you are not fully on board, or if you criticise us, then you are against us, and worthy of punishment.

 

I really cannot believe you accept such notions.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Labour_Party

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Definition_of_Antisemitism

[radfordred 6,284]

Let’s not forget that dodgy beard he was hiding behind 

[Brew 5,480]

10 hours ago, DJ360 said:

t would be helpful if you stopped describing my considered and closely argued posts as 'diatribes'.

 

Helpful to whom?

Col, I have always considered your posts to be well written and well thought out, though obviously faithful to the anti-Tory mantra and highly biased.

 

Other than exaggeration there is, invective, tirade, disputation, abuse, castigation and more words I could use. However, the word diatribe along with another you don't like 'hyperbole', seem to be a good fit for the sometimes vitriolic post you make in the political thread.

 

 Diatribe:

/ˈdaɪ.ə.traɪb/ us. /ˈdaɪ.ə.traɪb/ an angry speech or piece of writing that severely criticizes something or someone:  C.E.D

 

Diatribe:

(against somebody/something) a long and angry speech or piece of writing attacking and criticizing somebody/something:  O.L.D.

 

 

[letsavagoo 968]

There are endless accusations. 
Here is one of many.

https://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/article/jeremy-corbyn-anti-semitism

[Brew 5,480]

30 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

 

That is not my recall.  As I  remember, Corbyn was not willing to accept a declaration on anti Semitism which emanated from sections of the Jewish Community, including some groups which are known to be right wing.(Let's be honest here..Israel's Govt. is right wing, as is Zionism)

 

 

It matters not where it originated. The bald fact is my statement stands, he was at odds with the upper echelons in the party over it, and they threw him out. You may not consider him to be in the wrong but those in the Labour Party, and therefore privy to far more information, think the opposite.

 

There is a long and now quite boring argument about him laying a wreath on Black September martyr's memorial in Tunisia.

The initial denial and claim it was a memorial to innocents killed by Israel doesn't stand up, it was in another section of the cemetery.

 

"I was there, but not sure I was part of it".    His words not mine and to my mind a total nonsense.

 

This along with all his other weak excuses only serve to convince me he has a dislike of Jews and strong support for their enemies, but lacks the courage to say so.

[Beekay 5,261]

[Brew 5,480]

So long as you don't think there is any animosity fine, but I have a huge respect for Col, his views, and reject suggestions there is any ill feeling.

 

[Beekay 5,261]

If that's for me Brew, it were 'tongue firmly in cheek'. No dig or offence intended, just trying to bring a little light distraction.

Sincere apologies for any misunderstanding. 

[DJ360 6,759]

12 hours ago, letsavagoo said:

There are endless accusations. 
Here is one of many.

https://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/article/jeremy-corbyn-anti-semitism

 

Not the best you could have posted Letsav.  It is rather difficult to get 'behind', exactly who owns and controls 'Glamour' magazine, but it's no surprise they don't exactly adore Corbyn.

 

Anyway, I'm not going to argue that point any more.   Corbyn is certainly a strange one,  but I don't believe he is fundamentally anti-semitic. I'm prepared to accept that he has difficulty sorting out the difference betwen Judaeism, Israel, Israeli Govt. and Israeli Govt. policy, but if I told you I  have no time for the rulers or policies of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya etc.., would you therefore conclude that I am Islamophobic?