icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
LOLOLOL
:lol:
Excellent, fella !
Touche.
(Where's the handclapping smilie?).
:lol:
Excellent, fella !
Touche.
(Where's the handclapping smilie?).
The election 2015
- Thread starter trudij
- Start date
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
Author, author.
M
marbler
Guest
Hahaha. Everyman has to start somewhere.
Last edited:
Just when I was starting to recover from the disturbing image of Diane Abbott being ravished in a Cotswolds field, or wearing motorcycle leathers, we're now served up Cameron stuffing Peppa pig.
I tried to reconcile the Corbyn and Abbott thing in the spirit of liberated hippie free love etc and tried to convince myself that sex isn't exclusively for the body beautiful. It didn't work. I just couldn't round that off against the identity of the two indivduals
What a fine body of politicians we have
Mind you, all this will be insignificant if Operation Midland is ever allowed to prosecute anyone who isn't deemed to be dead and reputationally expendable
I tried to reconcile the Corbyn and Abbott thing in the spirit of liberated hippie free love etc and tried to convince myself that sex isn't exclusively for the body beautiful. It didn't work. I just couldn't round that off against the identity of the two indivduals
What a fine body of politicians we have
Mind you, all this will be insignificant if Operation Midland is ever allowed to prosecute anyone who isn't deemed to be dead and reputationally expendable
But, but, but, but, but, ............................
Taking off on a biking trip as a young man around Europe isn't an affront against morals, decency or good taste, tho', or is it?
Getting "blown" by a dead pig, on the other hand ......................
...Dave and Jeremy can debate the sexual attraction of porkers and fat old sows at PMQs on Wednesday - 'I've received this email from Drone who subsists somewhere north of Watford'
I feel confident though that neither will ever be exposed as having been tempted to dabble in the ultimate vile perversion of 'reading' the Daily Mail...or The Sun...or The Daily Star...or The Daily Express...or...
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
Aye, you're probably correct.
Highly likely that both these gents would eschew downmarket rags like the above in favour of the more cerebral reading content of Jamaican Wives for one and http://www.pig-world.co.uk/ for the other.
Last edited:
The Daily Mail seems to be leading on one of the elephants in the room that he's totally escaped scrutiny for, and that's the fiasco of his Libya policy, which they're also saying (quite correctly for once) has been hugely damaging to the UK's standing with the US.
You might recall that the Obama adminsitration, and Hillary Clinton personally, copped a whole bucket load of **** over the assassination of their attache in Benghazi. Oh they're really appreciative of Cameron! The US has also lost one of their more secret rendition transit centres, and Europe its first line of border control. It all stemmed from some wildly inaccurate British assessment that Gadaffi was going to turn Benghazi into Rwanda, and haunted by this unproven idea, the Democrat party panciked a bit and reluctantly agreed to pave the way for an Anglo French piece of strategic stupidity.
As ground was recaptured of course, none of these death pits were found. OK, they found evidence of prisoner executions on both sides, but then this is war and bad things happen. Basically the British put the American's away and they ain't happy about it
You can of course see the dead hand of the most hapless Foreign Secretary in recent history behind it. He should have been made minister with special repsonsibility for Hollywood 'A listers' and kept to the after dinner speaking circuit. He should never have been handed one of the great offices of state. He was a palpable idiot (still is)
The Daily Hiel have of course extended the chronically poor judgement shown by the Cameron/ Hague axis over Libya to a question of ineptitude over the way they failed to make the case against Syria and lost the vote. You might recall the New York papers ran a headline "The British Aren't Coming" the next day. The country that gained in this process has been France, who showed their willingness to support to the US and who had also mopped up a job in central Africa
Has David Cameron been invited to the Whitehouse since he so catastrophically misjudged Libya? It's an open secret that the American's are pissed off with him, and Michael Ashcroft (who isn't without his connections in Washington, particularly in defence) is lifting that lid.
There's a little bit of me wondering if the Tunisian beach shoot up would have happened had Cameron not replaced Gadaffi with a civil war that allowed ISIS to get a strong foot through the door. It's widely reported that the gunman trained in Libya with ISIS before returning to Tunisia. Would that have happened under the nose of Gadaffi's secret police? Almost certainly not.
You might recall that the Obama adminsitration, and Hillary Clinton personally, copped a whole bucket load of **** over the assassination of their attache in Benghazi. Oh they're really appreciative of Cameron! The US has also lost one of their more secret rendition transit centres, and Europe its first line of border control. It all stemmed from some wildly inaccurate British assessment that Gadaffi was going to turn Benghazi into Rwanda, and haunted by this unproven idea, the Democrat party panciked a bit and reluctantly agreed to pave the way for an Anglo French piece of strategic stupidity.
As ground was recaptured of course, none of these death pits were found. OK, they found evidence of prisoner executions on both sides, but then this is war and bad things happen. Basically the British put the American's away and they ain't happy about it
You can of course see the dead hand of the most hapless Foreign Secretary in recent history behind it. He should have been made minister with special repsonsibility for Hollywood 'A listers' and kept to the after dinner speaking circuit. He should never have been handed one of the great offices of state. He was a palpable idiot (still is)
The Daily Hiel have of course extended the chronically poor judgement shown by the Cameron/ Hague axis over Libya to a question of ineptitude over the way they failed to make the case against Syria and lost the vote. You might recall the New York papers ran a headline "The British Aren't Coming" the next day. The country that gained in this process has been France, who showed their willingness to support to the US and who had also mopped up a job in central Africa
Has David Cameron been invited to the Whitehouse since he so catastrophically misjudged Libya? It's an open secret that the American's are pissed off with him, and Michael Ashcroft (who isn't without his connections in Washington, particularly in defence) is lifting that lid.
There's a little bit of me wondering if the Tunisian beach shoot up would have happened had Cameron not replaced Gadaffi with a civil war that allowed ISIS to get a strong foot through the door. It's widely reported that the gunman trained in Libya with ISIS before returning to Tunisia. Would that have happened under the nose of Gadaffi's secret police? Almost certainly not.
"Are you looking at my pig!"
What price Dennis Skinner gets expelled for being the first shout "oink oink" as Mr Smokey Bacon rises?
It would be tempting to ask a series of questions about pig farming wouldn't it, given agriculture and the prices demanded by supermarkets (more so milk production in truth) is semi topical at the moment
Alternatively, Corbyn could try something along the lines of; "this question has been submitted by Peppa, from Oxford, who explains that she was forced to watch her father beheaded by some fanatics whose leader then proceeded to devile his memory by inserting his dick into the mouth of the corpse, and performing a sex act on him. Will the Prime Minister join me in condeming these barbaric terrorists?"
Perhaps the Hogshead chain of pubs could make some capital of this? As endorsed by David Cameron
I should say though, if I were forced to choose between the pair. I reckon I'd probably go with the pig ahead of Diane Abbott
Last edited:
There's a little bit of me wondering if the Tunisian beach shoot up would have happened had Cameron not replaced Gadaffi with a civil war that allowed ISIS to get a strong foot through the door. It's widely reported that the gunman trained in Libya with ISIS before returning to Tunisia. Would that have happened
Complete crap
Trying to blame cameron for the libyan civil war is desperate. I think you will find that the fighting was well underway before any intervention and your hero Gadafi had already taken action and made threats that had the war very much under way
the second part would shame even the most laughable guardian columnist. You have no idea whatsoever whether that would have made a difference either way. None at all and it is pretty clear that with his intention being to simply kill westerners and ruin the tunisian economy he certainly didnt need training to do so
I suppose Corbyn blaming the attack on "austerity" comes close but i think once in a while it may be worth while the hard left blamethejewsandwest merchants to consider what these filth are all about
Complete crap
Trying to blame cameron for the libyan civil war is desperate. I think you will find that the fighting was well underway before any intervention and your hero Gadafi had already taken action and made threats that had the war very much under way
the second part would shame even the most laughable guardian columnist. You have no idea whatsoever whether that would have made a difference either way. None at all and it is pretty clear that with his intention being to simply kill westerners and ruin the tunisian economy he certainly didnt need training to do so
I suppose Corbyn blaming the attack on "austerity" comes close but i think once in a while it may be worth while the hard left blamethejewsandwest merchants to consider what these filth are all about
You're wrong (again)
The tide of the uprising (i think you really ought to research how it started Clive and how many people were involved) had started to turn against the rebels. It would have been over in 5 days. The American's even invoked their own arrest figures from foreign fighters in Iraq to cast serious questions on just what sort of movement would spring from Benghazi. They weren't particularly convinced that this was some kind of pro democracy movement and spent a week doing nothing. It was the intervention of the British playing the Rwanda card that eventually persuded them to launch a 3 day checking campaign against Gadaffi, and after that they largely withdrew. It became a destinctly Anglo/ French mission using Italian bases, and to try and deny this simply deluded
Gadaffi actually offered an amnesty to those taking part who laid down their weapons and went back into civilian life, whereas he said that those who continued fighting would be treated as belligerents and dealt with accordingly (as you do in war). I'm sorry if you think issuing threats against Islamist militants is immoral and cause for supporting them. This is the effect your strategy had though, and Gadaffi was imploring the world to recognise the composition of the uprising. He knew, and has been vindicated (unless of course you think that it's democratic best practise model) - in which there really is no hope for you
Sadly it does you no favours to blindly and obediently parrot the discreditted William Hague line. To be honest, his account has been exposed (just as WMD in Iraq has been). The body pits that Hague told us they'd uncover when territory was regained never emerged. Instead we found American rendition centres and evidence of minor prisoner executions on both sides.
How can you not possibly see Cameron's finger prints aren't all over this?. It's been a complete and utter fiasco. Let me put it another way. The American's think so. They're very pissed off with him (something Ashcroft is laying bare). He wouldn't risk his own sources in Washington if he wasn't accurately representing their sentiment. As I noted, how many times has Cameron been invited to Washington for the seal of approval set piece since? You might also recall that Cameron gave his pledge to the Libyan people in the afternath. What happened to that? What he was trying to do was commit America and mistakenly thought he was speaking for them. Instead, they've washed their hands of him, and basically said "your mess, you sort it out" and because he can't, he's now abandoned them, or to put it another way - Cameron speak with porked tongue
Hillary Clinton in particular was very badly mauled over Benghazi and she could be President in 15 months time
Good move Dave
The winners here have been the French (largely resulting from Syria) and ISIS
The tide of the uprising (i think you really ought to research how it started Clive and how many people were involved) had started to turn against the rebels. It would have been over in 5 days. The American's even invoked their own arrest figures from foreign fighters in Iraq to cast serious questions on just what sort of movement would spring from Benghazi. They weren't particularly convinced that this was some kind of pro democracy movement and spent a week doing nothing. It was the intervention of the British playing the Rwanda card that eventually persuded them to launch a 3 day checking campaign against Gadaffi, and after that they largely withdrew. It became a destinctly Anglo/ French mission using Italian bases, and to try and deny this simply deluded
Gadaffi actually offered an amnesty to those taking part who laid down their weapons and went back into civilian life, whereas he said that those who continued fighting would be treated as belligerents and dealt with accordingly (as you do in war). I'm sorry if you think issuing threats against Islamist militants is immoral and cause for supporting them. This is the effect your strategy had though, and Gadaffi was imploring the world to recognise the composition of the uprising. He knew, and has been vindicated (unless of course you think that it's democratic best practise model) - in which there really is no hope for you
Sadly it does you no favours to blindly and obediently parrot the discreditted William Hague line. To be honest, his account has been exposed (just as WMD in Iraq has been). The body pits that Hague told us they'd uncover when territory was regained never emerged. Instead we found American rendition centres and evidence of minor prisoner executions on both sides.
How can you not possibly see Cameron's finger prints aren't all over this?. It's been a complete and utter fiasco. Let me put it another way. The American's think so. They're very pissed off with him (something Ashcroft is laying bare). He wouldn't risk his own sources in Washington if he wasn't accurately representing their sentiment. As I noted, how many times has Cameron been invited to Washington for the seal of approval set piece since? You might also recall that Cameron gave his pledge to the Libyan people in the afternath. What happened to that? What he was trying to do was commit America and mistakenly thought he was speaking for them. Instead, they've washed their hands of him, and basically said "your mess, you sort it out" and because he can't, he's now abandoned them, or to put it another way - Cameron speak with porked tongue
Hillary Clinton in particular was very badly mauled over Benghazi and she could be President in 15 months time
Good move Dave
The winners here have been the French (largely resulting from Syria) and ISIS
Last edited:
Attachments
Michael Ashcroft's response (a tweet) to Cameron's joke. For those of you unaware, Cameron had been to see his Doctor early in the day for an injection after experiencing some pain chopping wood. He was at a Conservative fundraiser later and related the story that the Doctor had told him to lie on his front and that he'd feel a little prick, just a small stab in the back, which Cameron said "rather summed up my day"
Good to see PM retains his sense of humour. We must have the same doctor. I had the same in 2010 when the PM reneged http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34328067 …
Looks like the latest is that Cameron uses the KGB to supply his drugs then!!!
Good to see PM retains his sense of humour. We must have the same doctor. I had the same in 2010 when the PM reneged http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34328067 …
Looks like the latest is that Cameron uses the KGB to supply his drugs then!!!
Last edited:
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
Seems like a smart move to me. They can probably get their mitts on all manner of top-end sh*it, and it will be no-questions-asked when they drop it off.
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
Lets keep it real, eh?
There is no suggestion in the disclosures that Cameron "uses the KGB to supply his drugs". What is revealed is that as an eighteen-year-old on a school holiday he was approached by two men on a beach in Crimea who "might" have been KGB operatives and who offered him a night on the town of champagne, caviar and a little amount of weed. The "approach" was never followed up, and no further contact was activated.
Bit of a fantasy to claim that he is -- in the present tense -- sourcing drugs via the KGB.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...ing-data-shows-challenge-facing-jeremy-corbyn
defeated before he starts but we knew that
what is incredible is the corbyn supporters views of competition in markets. In effect three quarters of them believe strongly in a soviet style command economy.
surely they could be sectioned for that?
defeated before he starts but we knew that
what is incredible is the corbyn supporters views of competition in markets. In effect three quarters of them believe strongly in a soviet style command economy.
surely they could be sectioned for that?
Last edited:
Actually, if I've interpreted that data correctly, I find the percentages of 'potential voters' surprisingly high, particularly the 32% who think Corbyn would be a better PM than Osborne and the 25% who are taken with a command-style economy: these are not negligible numbers
I'm forming the opinion that while those of us of a certain age who had first-hand experience of socialism and communism might find Corbynite dogma unattractive and atavistic there is now a significant adult population who didn't and may have only learnt about it in history lessons; who therefore might find it an attractive alternative to the rampant near-unregulated capitalism that's been a hallmark of this brave new millennium
Add to that a dangerously unstable world - that includes Europe - and the time may be ripe for shifts to hard left and hard right
I'm forming the opinion that while those of us of a certain age who had first-hand experience of socialism and communism might find Corbynite dogma unattractive and atavistic there is now a significant adult population who didn't and may have only learnt about it in history lessons; who therefore might find it an attractive alternative to the rampant near-unregulated capitalism that's been a hallmark of this brave new millennium
Add to that a dangerously unstable world - that includes Europe - and the time may be ripe for shifts to hard left and hard right
Last edited:
It's out of potential labour voters, not the whole electorate.
Its true that the outright failure of the eastern bloc is clearly more distant now and there are few current examples to look at. Venezuela is prime example but on there has also been a poll indicating that a large majority of labour voters are completely at odds with corbyns policies
i would personally be certain that there will not be any drift of any significance to the hard left or right in the uk.
Its true that the outright failure of the eastern bloc is clearly more distant now and there are few current examples to look at. Venezuela is prime example but on there has also been a poll indicating that a large majority of labour voters are completely at odds with corbyns policies
i would personally be certain that there will not be any drift of any significance to the hard left or right in the uk.
M
marbler
Guest
As I used to say at university...ideology has been seen as a dirty word in British politics...but its quite clear the Tories have one and so Corbyn's appointment has levelled up the idelogical playing field. I am personally sure Osbourne's economic policies are going to choke off growth. Clivex doesn't think the public is concerned about lack of investment in the economy from central government, but thats because the more wealthy people who would tend to vote tory think its a good way to shaft the less well off..and in the long term this will start to split the electorate to the left and right camps, and rightly so I reckon.
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
Drone is right to mention the demographic that has limited or no recollection of socialist/hard-left Governments, but I question how significant that is.
People tend not to want change for its own sake, which dilutes the ideology argument to an extent, and I don't believe the next elections will be a choice between Tax/Spend versus Free-Market-on-Steroids anyway. I think it's going to be won and lost on the respective parties positions on immigration, 'terror' and Europe, and I reckon the island-race mentality still prevails amongst all voting demographics.
An uber-pacifist like Corbyn - who would presumably wrap his arms around unlimited 'humanitarian' immigration, and ask the British public to pay for it - would be absolutely mullered at the polls if these were manifesto positions, because people simply won't stand for it, even if their natural persuasion is to vote Labour.
I reckon he will be tailed-off in the polls soon enough, and might not even be driving the van by the time the next election rolls around, because the writing will be on the wall, and there could very-well be a putsch against him. I'd be a layer about him still being in charge in mid-2018.
People tend not to want change for its own sake, which dilutes the ideology argument to an extent, and I don't believe the next elections will be a choice between Tax/Spend versus Free-Market-on-Steroids anyway. I think it's going to be won and lost on the respective parties positions on immigration, 'terror' and Europe, and I reckon the island-race mentality still prevails amongst all voting demographics.
An uber-pacifist like Corbyn - who would presumably wrap his arms around unlimited 'humanitarian' immigration, and ask the British public to pay for it - would be absolutely mullered at the polls if these were manifesto positions, because people simply won't stand for it, even if their natural persuasion is to vote Labour.
I reckon he will be tailed-off in the polls soon enough, and might not even be driving the van by the time the next election rolls around, because the writing will be on the wall, and there could very-well be a putsch against him. I'd be a layer about him still being in charge in mid-2018.
Last edited: