‘Real Labour’ claim is just nauseating
There can be no doubt about the misery to be inflicted on the vast majority of us by the Tories, all delivered with a sneer and complacent arrogance.
The most nauseating of all is their claim to be the true party of Labour.
This lot have presided over the longest fall in living standards since the 1870s, with working people earning less in real terms than they did when George Osborne became Chancellor in 2010. We are labouring longer hours than anyone in Europe, and last year on average one in five worked the equivalent of a day a week in unpaid overtime.
We are forced into taking a second job to make ends meet, no holiday pay and cannot afford to be ill – this is the daily reality of those on zero hour contracts. Osborne has made a deliberate choice to make millions of people worse off while millionaires get to hold on to their wealth, all based on political and class dogma.
The battle lines in our society have seldom been starker.
They offer nothing but insecurity, poverty and fear for working people.
Cameron’s smear demeans politicians
To quote Margaret Thatcher from the 1980s, she said: “If they attack you personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”
This is bad news for Cameron, who fell into the trap of once again smearing Jeremy Corbyn at the Tory Party Conference this week. He slams Corbyn for saying that the death of Bin Laden was a tragedy!
Unfortunately it was a statement, as usual, taken out of context; as most free-thinking people know, what Corbyn actually said was: “It was a tragedy that Bin Laden was assassinated rather than be put on trial.”
It was a personal attack that demeans politicians and, with his vicious tone, was completely over the top. Within the speech he was trying to put over the fact that the Conservatives were a caring, democratic party. That should mean they care for the rule of law in a just society. British people as a whole want the rule of law upheld and justice seen to be done in a court of law, rather than degrading ourselves and endorsing an act of terrorism committed by a world power.
However, his comments are likely to backfire. It was, I fear, a faltering attempt to engage in kinder politics at the same time as upholding the justification of power-fuelled governments to kill anyone they wish. This undermines our nation’s dignity and demeans us morally.
He continues to defend Saudi Arabia’s brutal regime however, that’s complicit in the rise of fundamentalist terrorism, so what is his moral argument?
I agree with Maggie you have no political arguments [or morals] left when you attack your opponents’ like this.
Why lie about this Bin Laden speech?
In his speech at the Tory conference, David Cameron said this about Jeremy Corbyn: ‘But you only really need to know one thing: he thinks the death of Osama bin Laden was a ‘tragedy’.”
No. A tragedy is nearly 3,000 people murdered one morning in New York. A tragedy is the mums and dads who never came home from work that day.’
But what Jeremy Corbyn actually said was: “This was an assassination attempt, and is yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy.The World Trade Center was a tragedy, the attack on Afghanistan was a tragedy, the war in Iraq was a tragedy. Tens of thousands of people have died.
“Can’t we learn some lessons from this? That we are just going to descend deeper and deeper.
“The next stage will be an attempted assassination on Gaddafi and so it will go on. This will just make the world more dangerous and worse and worse and worse.”
I wonder why David Cameron felt it necessary to blatantly lie about Jeremy Corbyn’s words? They were spoken in 2011 at the time of bin Laden’s death and clearly, with hindsight, were acutely prescient. Corbyn thought bin Laden should have faced trial. His killing removed that option – that was the tragedy – not his death!
How can two men take us to the brink?
Over the years, in the main, I have agreed with the “Nuclear deterrent”, but ever since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 I have always had a doubt at the back of my mind.
Namely, how can it be right that just two men can take the world to the brink of nuclear catastrophe? All that Kruschov was after was the removal of the missiles on the south coast of the Black Sea, pointing at Russia. When Kennedy realised he had been conned, he agreed to the removal with the proviso that the Russians wouldn’t release the news for six months.
Now about Jeremy Corbyn statement that he wouldn’t authorise the firing of missiles and the subsequent howls from the Tory camp about us being defenceless. What, like Germany, Holland, Belgium, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Spain, Greece, Turkey et al?
If I understand the situation correctly, we would only fire if missiles were incoming. We would only be a target because we have the weapons because of the so-called “MAD” theory –mutually assured destruction. Major cities would be destroyed and our world atmosphere polluted with deadly fall out for years.