Comments by "" (@col.hertford9855) on "PoliticsJOE"
channel.
-
445
-
162
-
149
-
145
-
90
-
86
-
66
-
64
-
50
-
40
-
40
-
38
-
36
-
35
-
32
-
28
-
28
-
26
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
18
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@aclark903 incorrect, the most successful countries have always applied secular values, not religious ones. These values have been shared by a greater or lesser extent by any culture that develops a modicum of philosophical or scientific progress, weather it’s pre-crusades Islam, Ancient Greek and Roman, Chinese, or Japanese cultures. Basically you need a level of tolerance and acceptance to allow progress to be made in spite of religious doctrine, so an easing or dogmatic adherence to a set of principles is the commonality, not Christianity. Look at China, they have eased there dogmatic adherence to there variant of communist authoritarianism and are now starting to become a world leader in science and technology. America on the other are going down a rabbit hole of religious fundamentalism which will at some point reduce their scientific output.
The theory of Evolution is an excellent example of a discovery being made in spite of religion, not because of it. It was not a welcome discovery and it created major theological problems. Two hundred years prior and Darwin would likely have been a heretic.
No country in the west follows christian biblical teachings literally as that would take us back to the heretic burning of the pre-enlightenment.
Finally, North Korea is hardly an atheist (and I struggle to understand what an atheist country is if I’m honest, do you mean an authoritarian country with bans on “religions”. Or a country with no state religion?) country, it’s more of a cult of leader worship, where the leaders are effectively treated as gods. They even have a triumvirate like Christianity now.
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@banksarenotyourfriends I don’t think most people actually knew who he was tbh. 2017 was as much a protest vote against Brexit, May, and the Tories, as much as a vote for Corbyn. The Lib Dems were still persona non gratis after the coalition. So sure he picked up votes, but he didn’t appeal to the small c conservative swing voters to capitalise on the voter share. He didn’t win back Scotland. Getting youngsters out to vote is great, but they need to be where it counts under FPTP.
A Leaders only as good as their last election you can’t say he was great in 2017 and 2019 don’t count. He lost both elections, and Labour tanked in 2019 and it was clearly down to his lack of leadership.
The fact he never seemed to come out for interviews during the 2019 politics tensions didn’t help. The fact he wouldn’t step aside to allow a government of national unity be created meant a lot of people voted LD or Green instead of labour. Also in the build up he allowed a power vacuum to form and the shadow cabinet filled it, again this just reinforced the perception he was weak.
Interesting you mention PR, because whilst I believe Corbyn is supportive of PR, Labour under Corbyn were against it. And while the members seem to have finally woken up to it last year, it’s unlikely to be a priority whilst Labour are winning under FPTP.
The biggest issue with JC right now is he has, rightly or wrongly, become a vote loser. I do feel it’s a bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. But currently, it feels like Corbyn is the only attack line Sunak has on Starmer at PMQT. So making that a viable attack line is politically a mistake.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@the1beard no, because infrastructure is not like a house. It’s like the services provided to a house. Would you be willing to buy a house with no electricity, gas, roads, broadband, sewers, water? Of course not. Without adequate infrastructure, business will not remain or set up in the UK. This is a major gripe of businesses in the UK, not my words, his is from business. We lag behind the other European states as our infrastructure is still broadly Victorian, especially rail.
The fact you want to throw more vehicles in the road suggest you don’t live in the south of England. It’s horrendous traffic congestion on the roads. You want to make it worse.
Do you see? If you don’t, maybe you should do some research into the benefits of a good rail network. Japan, Germany, France are all good examples.
Why are right wingers so poor at analogy?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@steveharrison76 how do you know the spare capacity of private hospitals? I’m guessing Labour maybe spoke to the private healthcare sector first, because that would be an easy tory attack line otherwise.
Not all private healthcare professionals are NHS staff, how do you know they will not sleep? Currently that’s the issue in some parts of the NHS. There needs to be a quick solution to mitigate capacity and pressure on the NHS. Like it or not, this will be part of any solution. The other option is people living in pain and dying for the sake of ideological purity. If this is your preferred option, then there is really no helping you.
How do you know the funding will come from existing NHS budgets, and not the windfall taxes on energy companies, public schooling tax, or some other wealth tax? In short, your assertion are opinions.
Currently Streeting (who I loathe) has said they will use the Private Sector to back up the NHS, I want to know the fleshed out long term details before making an informed judgement. Is this a permanent plan? Or is there an aim to reform and rebuild the NHS? This is a question I haven’t heard answered yet as they focus on short term, and it’s presented as a short term plan.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1