• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread pt. 2

Honestly mate get over it, Corbyn won't be coming back as Labour leader. We have to look to the future not be fighting arguments of now 3 years ago.

I wanted a Corbyn minority government we didn't get that (twice!), I want a Starmer one now. I'll take any leader of the Labour party over any Conservative no matter how much they don't align with my overall views.

Get over people smearing people as being racist, in coordination with the media for their own narrow political objectives? Not my style to turn the other cheek to that. Anymore than I'll forget someone here suggesting the only member to post here about Israeli rugby was anti-semitic! :D
 
My complaint is him apparently showing apparent disgust at 5 million UK based bill payers paying a French energy firm - there was no need to mention that in the age of globalisation.
Did you actually listen to the speech? The point wasn't anti-French at all. He was listing other nations with publically owned companies within the British energy market to build the argument for Britain to have one.
 
Honestly mate get over it,

No. Its not "get over it".

"News" in the USA has completely polarised opinion and its not hyperbole to suggest they are on a trajectory to civil war. They'd better hope Trump f**ks off and dies - and MAGA dies with him.

The BBC here have an ill-deserved and inaccurate reputation as impartial - which means their actual impartiality is a real obstacle to both the political system and accountability of individuals within the system.


If your prepared to turn a blind eye to it now - what stops it being a problem again in a year or two when its the same crooks in charge?
 
View attachment 15167

FFS don't make it that bloody obvious you massaged the figures Putin.

Door to door Russian soldiers asking for votes and one vote per household. Yeh of course it wasn't bloody decided in Moscow. 🤬

So will we now see an increase in Russian firepower against Ukraine, seeing as they can now claim Ukraine are attacking Russian territory?
 
Because the BBC will always be an esbtablishment voice you have to change who the establisment is. The only way to clean it up is to clear out the Tories. The press will smear any Labour leader if it can and that's the game we have today and it's the game we'll have 20 years from now.

Everyone with an eye on politics said his dodgy positions as far as the British public would be used as huge ammunition against him during the 1st leadership campaign. The left didnt listen and act shocked when it happened. Hell my biggest issue with him was his hugely well known history of Euroscepticism and his lack of leadership post Brexit vote in forging a way through that when it could be stopped. That wasn't a press smear but reality.

The left picked poorly and now can't let go that what they were told would happen happened. Its time to get over it and pick someone with far less baggage next time they have a chance.
 
Did you actually listen to the speech? The point wasn't anti-French at all. He was listing other nations with publically owned companies within the British energy market to build the argument for Britain to have one.

Thank you for the correction. I didn't realise EDF was 85% owned by the French government. That's a lot less alarming but he should have said "going to the French government", that's a lot less open to being misconstrued than a generic reference about France (at a time when the UK government is in a neverending spat with them).
 
Because the BBC will always be an esbtablishment voice you have to change who the establisment is. The only way to clean it up is to clear out the Tories. The press will smear any Labour leader if it can and that's the game we have today and it's the game we'll have 20 years from now.

Everyone with an eye on politics said his dodgy positions as far as the British public would be used as huge ammunition against him during the 1st leadership campaign. The left didnt listen and act shocked when it happened. Hell my biggest issue with him was his hugely well known history of Euroscepticism and his lack of leadership post Brexit vote in forging a way through that when it could be stopped. That wasn't a press smear but reality.

The left picked poorly and now can't let go that what they were told would happen happened. Its time to get over it and pick someone with far less baggage next time they have a chance.
Some of this is valid. The SNP are the same up here. They have to be painfully bland in an incredibly partisan and hostile media landscape. So that is probably why Keir is being so incredibly unionist, silent on Israel and generally not saying boo to a goose (I'm surprised and encouraged he found the stones to mention nationalisation of railways and energy).

But that doesnt mean we should as citizens tolerate that bias media. And we certainly shouldn't be applauding or even being neutral to those who actively fed misinformation to the hostile media in the knowledge it would harm genuine left of centre objectives.
 
Thank you for the correction. I didn't realise EDF was 85% owned by the French government. That's a lot less alarming but he should have said "going to the French government", that's a lot less open to being misconstrued than a generic reference about France (at a time when the UK government is in a neverending spat with them).
He also mentioned Sweden and Chinese Communist Government in the same section. The previous section was about how Britain should lead the way in Green technologies. He was also speaking about being 100% green (includes nuclear which will be a contention for some) by 2030. The announced the big part of having a publically owned company to drive that vision forward.

It was pretty impressive clear plan forward. Linking together tech jobs with that as well. It's big sky thinking in terms of it could actually be done. But it was vision that had a plan that clearly not been done on the back of a fag packet like Johnson and his big ideas.
 
He also mentioned Sweden and Chinese Communist Government in the same section. The previous section was about how Britain should lead the way in Green technologies. He was also speaking about being 100% green (includes nuclear which will be a contention for some) by 2030. The announced the big part of having a publically owned company to drive that vision forward.

It was pretty impressive clear plan forward. Linking together tech jobs with that as well. It's big sky thinking in terms of it could actually be done. But it was vision that had a plan that clearly not been done on the back of a fag packet like Johnson and his big ideas.
I'd be fine with nuclear if it was temporary. It's certainly not ideal, but we need immediate action. Hypothetically if Britain did hit 100% including nuclear by 2030 it could then start to phase out nuclear after.
 
I'd be fine with nuclear if it was temporary. It's certainly not ideal, but we need immediate action. Hypothetically if Britain did hit 100% including nuclear by 2030 it could then start to phase out nuclear after.
I'm fine with it as well, I'd want us the phase out but it's better than fossil. Let's get off those then plan for the next steps after that.
 
Putin will make a special announcement on the 30/09. I already prepared a bucket of valerian.
 
On the conscription, I know it's often highlighted that this is the first time since the second world war. However the two situations are completely different. In WW2 they were fighting to protect their homeland. Now they will be fighting a war the majority don't believe in. The mentality will be completely different. Those conscripts are going to an already low morale war front, under equipped and under prepared. It's ridiculous to think it will just change the war.
 
I was under the impression they potentially had larger missile capacity (non-nuclear) which hasn't been used
They've used plenty of thermobarics if that's what you're thinking of?
I'm no military man, but I think that's about as big as you can go without nukes.


On the conscription, I know it's often highlighted that this is the first time since the second world war. However the two situations are completely different. In WW2 they were fighting to protect their homeland. Now they will be fighting a war the majority don't believe in. The mentality will be completely different. Those conscripts are going to an already low morale war front, under equipped and under prepared. It's ridiculous to think it will just change the war.
One thought is that simply sending them in as cannon fodder, and then letting them surrender after a week will simply tie up Ukrainian troops and resources capturing them, processing them, transporting them under guard, them treating their wounds, feeding, clothing and housing them.
From anyone other than Russia, I'd scoff and not repeat it, but... Russia has previous form for seeing human lives as surplus to requirements.
 

:eek: "Between September 25th and 27th, Russia repeatedly attacked Petropavlivka (4) and suffered horrific casualties. Many hundreds died, and hundreds more were wounded. If you look at the casualty counts posted by Ukraine's MOD, you will see over 500 killed listed each of the past few days. These suicide attacks explain those losses. Russia attacked without armored vehicles or heavy equipment, with little artillery support and little air support. The air support was hindered by Ukraine's air defense, which shot down at least three jets and an attack helicopter immediately leading up to and during these Russian attacks."
 

Latest posts

Top