Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: jakswan on June 26, 2016, 08:40:18 AM
-
Surely they have split, Corbyn should be in the Green Party, Benn in the LibDems.
-
Surely they have split, Corbyn should be in the Green Party, Benn in the LibDems.
They are still going to have more than one MP Jack.
-
I wonder whether either Tory or Labour Parties will ever really rcover from the events of last week. Perhaps that would a be good thing and encourage people to really think about their voting, rather than simply voting for this or that party because they always have done, and their parents before them.
-
Hearing that the PLP can have its own leader.
-
Hearing that the PLP can have its own leader.
Are you saying that the PLP can elect a leader that is different to that elected by the membership? I thought that that was diametrically opposed to the 'democratic' nature of the process. Out of interest, if this was the case, which leader would become PM following any General Election victory?
-
I wonder whether either Tory or Labour Parties will ever really rcover from the events of last week. Perhaps that would a be good thing and encourage people to really think about their voting, rather than simply voting for this or that party because they always have done, and their parents before them.
But we need a rational voting system.
-
Quote from Frankie Boyle
'I'm not a politician but I don't know that the best time to launch a Blairite conis 2 weeks before the Chilcot report comes out'
-
Blog from Craig Murray
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/06/still-iraq-war-stupid/
-
Surely they have split, Corbyn should be in the Green Party, Benn in the LibDems.
You are probably right!
-
Ffs
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tristram-hunt-tells-oxbridge-labour-students-that-the-top-1-per-cent-must-take-leadership-in-labour-a6717731.html
-
Ffs
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tristram-hunt-tells-oxbridge-labour-students-that-the-top-1-per-cent-must-take-leadership-in-labour-a6717731.html
That was last year.
-
That was last year.
Indeed, my mistake, thanks.
-
Indeed, my mistake, thanks.
Here is what I think will happen. Labour MPs will force an election. Corbyn will win again for exactly the same reasons as last time but reinforced by the observation of the PLP riding roughshod over the will of the electorate.
-
Here is what I think will happen. Labour MPs will force an election. Corbyn will win again for exactly the same reasons as last time but reinforced by the observation of the PLP riding roughshod over the will of the electorate.
Probably right, what happens then will be interesting though
-
Probably right, what happens then will be interesting though
I agree but "may you live in interesting times" is allegedly an ancient Chinese curse.
-
If that can't get rid of Corbyn then the centre left MPs are are on borrowed time, they will all face deselection.
Notice LibDems will fight a future election on overturning referendum vote. I can see many of these MPs moving to LibDems, if they pick up support from the electorate.
-
I wonder whether either Tory or Labour Parties will ever really rcover from the events of last week. Perhaps that would a be good thing and encourage people to really think about their voting, rather than simply voting for this or that party because they always have done, and their parents before them.
Oh grief - I'm going to have to lie down - agreeing with HOpe again.
-
Oh grief - I'm going to have to lie down - agreeing with HOpe again.
Hi Trent, one's position on a single issue doesn't define anyone. In a previous board, several of us did one of these 'where do you stand politically' questionnaires (via Facebook, iirc). I turned out to be overall somewhat more left wing than most of the others and especially those who supported gay rights!! ;)
-
Here is what I think will happen. Labour MPs will force an election. Corbyn will win again for exactly the same reasons as last time but reinforced by the observation of the PLP riding roughshod over the will of the electorate.
The PLP have got a problem in that since Corbyn was elected by the Labour Party membership, it is up to the said membership to remove him. If he was appointed by the PLP it would be a different matter.
-
It's nothing more than all the thatcher loving Blairites getting all twitchy about the Chilcot enquiry and Corbyns threat of trying to get their beloved ex-leader charged with war crimes:
Jeremy Corbyn 'still prepared to call for Tony Blair war crimes investigation'
Jeremy Corbyn is prepared to call for an investigation into Tony Blair for alleged war crimes during the Iraq War, according to reports.
The Chilcot Inquiry into conflict will be released on 6 July this year after years of analysing evidence about how the Government acted in the run-up to and during the conflict.
During the Labour leadership election Mr Corbyn said he was convinced the Iraq War was illegal and that anyone who had committed a crime should be put on trial.
Tony Blair set to be savaged in ‘absolutely brutal’ Chilcot verdict “If [Tony Blair has] committed a war crime, yes. Everyone who's committed a war crime should be [charged],” he said...
http://tinyurl.com/j8okteh
I say good riddance to the Blairite scum. He should have kicked them all out as soon as he took over...
Corbyn fans should welcome this attempted coup, the Blairites are committing political suicide.
In these uncertain days after the Brexit vote, when the Labour party needed to rally UK progressives to prevent a right-wing Brexit from the European Union – a small number of Labour MPs have instead chosen to mount a coup against leader Jeremy Corbyn. But Corbyn supporters should be ecstatic, because this opportunistic and ignorant move is an act of political suicide for the Blairites..
This coup is being mounted despite Corbyn winning last year’s leadership election with the greatest landslide of any leader in the party’s history (including Blair), doubling the membership of the Labour party, and moving ahead in the polls.
But the British public aren’t idiots. This move by the increasingly bitter but withered ranks of Blairite Labour MPs has been seen as rank opportunism, and detrimental to the urgent work required to ensure a progressive exit from the European Union. The reaction has been swift, and defiant.
First, there was a massive show of support for Corbyn by Labour members. A petition called “A vote of confidence for Jeremy Corbyn after the Brexit vote” has gathered more than 150,000 signatures in the last 24 hours and continues to rise rapidly.
Next came the unions. The leaders of the 12 strongest unions in the United Kingdom wrote a letter of support following the attempted coup....
http://tinyurl.com/hgv9jpu
This might just be the shake-up the Labour Party needs to get it back to its grass-roots!!
-
This just in: "Jeremy Corbyn Announces New Shadow Cabinet As Labour MPs Attempt To Force Him To Resign"
"Jeremy Corbyn has announced a new shadow cabinet, as he battles to cling onto the leadership of the Labour Party following a series of resignations designed to oust him from office.
Over the course of Sunday, Corbyn lost 12 members of his shadow cabinet. On Monday morning, resignations at more junior levels began as MPs attempted to force a change in leadership.
Despite the flood of resignations and criticism, Corbyn has insisted he will not step down and will stand in any future leadership contest.
Fighting back against the attempted coup, Corbyn has promoted allies including Clive Lewis, Kate Osamor and Cat Smith."
http://tinyurl.com/jt2vu8s
-
It's ironic that just at the time we need a sharp united opposition we have that useless sod pretending to be Stalin.
-
I would have thought that the major campaign we have just gone through would have allowed some of these Shadow Cabinet ministers a chance to step up and campaign and make a name for themselves. Who is Yvonne Forvargue and is she an actual person? Or can we just be told of resignations of made up people now?
-
Really... although to be fair it comes as no great surprise that the Thatcher loving/Tory coloured Blairite MPs, who have been sniping and attempting to undermining Jeremy Corbyn ever since he became party leader are now trying to oust him.
But you are right in your observation LA - What's astonishing is that they have chosen this moment, which calls for a time for unity and clear-headedness, to launch such an attempt.. WTF's wrong with these Blairite twats?
Ohh they all keep bleating on about needing a more charismatic leader, not like the Miliband or Brown, but their hero Tory Blair.
But have you noticed they haven't put forward an alternative candidate for the job?
More importantly they have no significant support among the Labour party membership who elected Corbyn in the first place.
This attempt to oust Corbyn right now reads like a childish attempt at bullying, at a time when their constituents and country desperately need them to think bigger and better.
-
Here's a question:
How much of Labour's lacklustre Remain campaign was actually down to Corbyn and how much was down to the media just ignoring Labour because the Tory in-fighting was a better story?
-
Ohh they all keep bleating on about needing a more charismatic leader, not like the Miliband or Brown, but their hero Tory Blair.
I think they need a competent leader who commands the respect of the party and appears credible to the electorate. What they have at to moment is a guy who looks like a retired university professor who just seems to mutter endlessly about socialism. Very reassuring for Labours left wing no doubt - but to the rest of the world he is just a useless idiot.
But have you noticed they haven't put forward an alternative candidate for the job?
Obviously, people are reluctant to be the one to 'weilds the dagger' - but it could happen.
More importantly they have no significant support among the Labour party membership who elected Corbyn in the first place.
Good point: I think that there is good evidence that Corbyn only got in because of the 'The Three Quid Votes' that were available to all and sundry - including those who did not have the best interests of Labour at heart. I have heard of a number of Tories who voted.
But even amongst the genuine Labour supports who voted for Jeremy - a great number must by now be disappointed in him.
This attempt to oust Corbyn right now reads like a childish attempt at bullying, at a time when their constituents and country desperately need them to think bigger and better.
It looks like a desperate attempt to save the Labour party from itself.
-
Really... although to be fair it comes as no great surprise that the Thatcher loving/Tory coloured Blairite MPs, who have been sniping and attempting to undermining Jeremy Corbyn ever since he became party leader are now trying to oust him.
But you are right in your observation LA - What's astonishing is that they have chosen this moment, which calls for a time for unity and clear-headedness, to launch such an attempt.. WTF's wrong with these Blairite twats?
Ohh they all keep bleating on about needing a more charismatic leader, not like the Miliband or Brown, but their hero Tory Blair.
But have you noticed they haven't put forward an alternative candidate for the job?
More importantly they have no significant support among the Labour party membership who elected Corbyn in the first place.
This attempt to oust Corbyn right now reads like a childish attempt at bullying, at a time when their constituents and country desperately need them to think bigger and better.
I don't know why people have to be so toxic (note to self try not to be so toxic towards SNP). There are two schools of thought for Labour, do they pitch at the centre left or left left.
Clearly the membership wanted to go left left but the PLP more wants to go centre left. A split the only solution the battle is who gets to call themselves Labour. if Corbyn is to win then he has to do what Kinnock did in reverse.
As to the timing surely this is because they think an election is coming and the centre left fear they will lose it with Corbyn in charge.
-
But have you noticed they haven't put forward an alternative candidate for the job?
:)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36638041
-
Funny old world
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/new-poll-puts-labour-ahead-of-tories-for-first-time-since-jeremy-corbyn-became-leader-a6937926.html
-
:)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36638041
Where does that put forward an alternative candidate?
-
Where does that put forward an alternative candidate?
No name appears but it says:
" . . deputy Labour Leader Tom Watson tells Jeremy Corbyn he faces a leadership challenge"
-
Funny old world
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/new-poll-puts-labour-ahead-of-tories-for-first-time-since-jeremy-corbyn-became-leader-a6937926.html
Weird as well the LibDems still dead in that poll but look likely to be the only party with "no Brexit" on their manifesto i can see them coming back.
-
I don't know why people have to be so toxic (note to self try not to be so toxic towards SNP). There are two schools of thought for Labour, do they pitch at the centre left or left left.
Clearly the membership wanted to go left left but the PLP more wants to go centre left. A split the only solution the battle is who gets to call themselves Labour. if Corbyn is to win then he has to do what Kinnock did in reverse.
As to the timing surely this is because they think an election is coming and the centre left fear they will lose it with Corbyn in charge.
Labour has been infiltrated by Dave Sparts from Militant/Socialist Party, Independent Workers of the World, IMG, and assorted 57 varieties of Stalinist/Trot types. They mostly don't care if they lose an election provided that the message is right.
-
Weird as well the LibDems still dead in that poll but look likely to be the only party with "no Brexit" on their manifesto i can see them coming back.
Well here's hoping :)
-
Labour has been infiltrated by Dave Sparts from Militant/Socialist Party, Independent Workers of the World, IMG, and assorted 57 varieties of Stalinist/Trot types. They mostly don't care if they lose an election provided that the message is right.
Sounds like exactly the same tactics that were used in the 70's - Labour could be a long time in the wilderness.
Meanwhile, whatever the Tories are doing (and even they don't seem to know) . . . they are facing no opposition.
-
Well, the Blairites have been plotting since Corbyn was elected, and it looks like they have their man now. I suppose they want a kind of liberal party, although I'm not sure what they have to say to the poor and disadvantaged, who have to an extent voted Brexit. 'We feel your pain', I suppose.
-
Well, the Blairites have been plotting since Corbyn was elected, and it looks like they have their man now. I suppose they want a kind of liberal party, although I'm not sure what they have to say to the poor and disadvantaged, who have to an extent voted Brexit. 'We feel your pain', I suppose.
They could hardly do less than a Corbynista Labour party whose chances of ever forming a government are slightly less than someone winning Euro Millions TWICE.
-
They could hardly do less than a Corbynista Labour party whose chances of ever forming a government are slightly less than someone winning Euro Millions TWICE.
Don't really agree, but it's a pointless argument. The Blairites look pretty determined to get rid of Corbyn. Well, I'm out then. Fuck, my family have been connected with Labour since the 1920s, ah well, it's over.
-
Don't really agree, but it's a pointless argument. The Blairites look pretty determined to get rid of Corbyn. Well, I'm out then. Fuck, my family have been connected with Labour since the 1920s, ah well, it's over.
You don't think that there might be some advantage to having a party that was electable?
-
I think they need a competent leader who commands the respect of the party and appears credible to the electorate. What they have at to moment is a guy who looks like a retired university professor who just seems to mutter endlessly about socialism. Very reassuring for Labours left wing no doubt - but to the rest of the world he is just a useless idiot.Obviously, people are reluctant to be the one to 'weilds the dagger' - but it could happen.Good point: I think that there is good evidence that Corbyn only got in because of the 'The Three Quid Votes' that were available to all and sundry - including those who did not have the best interests of Labour at heart. I have heard of a number of Tories who voted.
But even amongst the genuine Labour supports who voted for Jeremy - a great number must by now be disappointed in him.
It looks like a desperate attempt to save the Labour party from itself.
Alas the country now needs leadership to send BoJo the clown into the ignominious early retirement. Labour do have one or two action men but alas (no Nicola or Ruth) and potential bruisers.
I'm not sure if BoJo was at panto rehearsal today?
-
Well, the Blairites have been plotting since Corbyn was elected, and it looks like they have their man now. I suppose they want a kind of liberal party, although I'm not sure what they have to say to the poor and disadvantaged, who have to an extent voted Brexit. 'We feel your pain', I suppose.
I have no doubt that Momentum are plotting to get rid of many of the centre left MPs. I think Corbyn will win in the end, he spent years out in the cold its hardly a new experience for him.
-
I have no doubt that Momentum are plotting to get rid of many of the centre left MPs. I think Corbyn will win in the end, he spent years out in the cold its hardly a new experience for him.
I think that's probably what the tories are counting on.
-
I think the Blarites etc. have just handed Corbyn what he wants. All his friends etc. in the shadow cabinet, without much of a fuss. They can't challenge him to a leadership contest because they will lose. So now all the Labour lot on the right etc. of their party are out in the wilderness. But so too is Corbyn and Labour as he is unelectable.
Next the Tories kick the shit out of each other...
-
Weird as well the LibDems still dead in that poll but look likely to be the only party with "no Brexit" on their manifesto i can see them coming back.
only party? Shurely shome mishtake , ed?
And the position is they are assuming election post Brexit it, so re-entry
-
. . .
Next the Tories kick the shit out of each other...
Hopefully they will just 'kick the shit' out of Boris and select May as PM.
-
only party? Shurely shome mishtake , ed?
And the position is they are assuming election post Brexit it, so re-entry
The only party that stands for all British people, divisive nationalists excluded.
-
The only party that stands for all British people, divisive nationalists excluded.
Whatever happened to the LibDems? Do they still exist?
-
The only party that stands for all British people, divisive nationalists excluded.
That would be a problem since the divisive nationalists seem to have a 52% to 48% majority.
-
That would be a problem since the divisive nationalists seem to have a 52% to 48% majority.
In the region they represent. You can argue the Tories only stand for the rich, that Labour the unemployed and poor, both parties would argue otherwise, the SNP stand for Scottish people only.
-
Although Corbyn has lost the no confidence vote, 172 to 40 with 4 abstentions, he is still refusing to resign!
-
Well, the Brownites and Blairites are trying to avoid a leadership contest, as they would probably lose. The vote seems meaningless to me, since everybody knew that the plp doesn't like Corbyn. I suppose the argument is about whether MPs should choose the leader or the membership. Also of course, the left/right split.
-
Although Corbyn has lost the no confidence vote, 172 to 40 with 4 abstentions, he is still refusing to resign!
It's a fight to the death now and as with most wars no one is really a winner.
And what are they fighting for? Neither of them are electable. Corbyn is a given in this respect and the rest are yesterdays news. Their voters have moved on because they haven't been listened to, and I can't see how the middle ground lot saying what their voters want to hear will actually get them anywhere now due to a lose of trust in them.
-
It's a fight to the death now and as with most wars no one is really a winner.
And what are they fighting for? Neither of them are electable. Corbyn is a given in this respect and the rest are yesterdays news. Their voters have moved on because they haven't been listened to, and I can't see how the middle ground lot saying what their voters want to hear will actually get them anywhere now due to a lose of trust in them.
I notice though that Nigel Farage today made what was possibly a mistake in suggesting that the only people who should be listened to were business leaders. If you are saying that he is the darling of the dispossessed what is it that suggests he actually gives validity to what they sat and who they are?
-
Angela Eagle will challenge. It's time for Corbyn to show his quality. If he can't convince his party MPs to follow, they should just leave and form a new one.
-
Man up, Hilary!
-
Man up, Hilary!
I guess had I been in Corbyns cabinet I would have bailed out yesterday.....and would have buyers remorse today since it is clear that those anticorbynist C***ts K*******g and J**n Penis from the B*C are trying to fit his demise into their schedule. On that score alone I'd hold on just to destabilise their accepted privileges.
In a world where people are being C***nts and being feted for it why not? Go Jezzer.
-
I notice though that Nigel Farage today made what was possibly a mistake in suggesting that the only people who should be listened to were business leaders. If you are saying that he is the darling of the dispossessed what is it that suggests he actually gives validity to what they sat and who they are?
I would need a link to it to comment on such things.
-
Angela Eagle will challenge. It's time for Corbyn to show his quality. If he can't convince his party MPs to follow, they should just leave and form a new one.
They can't where would they get their funding. They would have to develop a whole new structure etc.
-
The only party that stands for all British people, divisive nationalists excluded.
green Party?
-
Well, the Brownites and Blairites are trying to avoid a leadership contest, as they would probably lose. The vote seems meaningless to me, since everybody knew that the plp doesn't like Corbyn. I suppose the argument is about whether MPs should choose the leader or the membership. Also of course, the left/right split.
172 out of Labours 212 MPs have no confidence in him - how can anyone lead under those circumstances.
The guy lives in a different world.
-
green Party?
No idea what their policy is.
-
I notice though that Nigel Farage today made what was possibly a mistake in suggesting that the only people who should be listened to were business leaders. If you are saying that he is the darling of the dispossessed what is it that suggests he actually gives validity to what they sat and who they are?
The 'dispossessed', yes, but also some extremely well off but largely uneducated people who have made a pile in business such as construction or taxi firms. Think Essex.
-
I see that one of the people appointed to the Shadow Cabinet on Monday has resigned.
-
No idea what their policy is.
I suppose it's good of Labour to provide us with a bit of light relief while there so much serious stuff going on.
-
172 out of Labours 212 MPs have no confidence in him - how can anyone lead under those circumstances.
The guy lives in a different world.
He should resign and stand for election again. He'll win again for the same reasons as before except with a bigger majority because the Labour rank and file will be even more shocked at the shenanigans going on in the PLP. He will then have a purge of the PLP and Labour will be unelectable for a decade.
Oh, right, he should just resign.
-
He should resign and stand for election again. He'll win again for the same reasons as before except with a bigger majority because the Labour rank and file will be even more shocked at the shenanigans going on in the PLP. He will then have a purge of the PLP and Labour will be unelectable for a decade.
Oh, right, he should just resign.
I think all but the hardest of hard left supporters have given-up on the git.
-
Even Cameron is getting in on the act:
"David Cameron to Jeremy Corbyn: For heaven's sake, go"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36663181
-
I think Corbyn will stick it out until someone else is elected. He obviously can't see how damaging his intransigence is to his party.
-
Cameron was remarkably honest when he said:
"It might be in my party's interest for him to sit there; it's not in the national interest"
-
Cameron was remarkably honest when he said:
"It might be in my party's interest for him to sit there; it's not in the national interest"
I thought that was a brilliant remark, and so true.
-
Corbyn has done this for years whilst I disagree with his politics he has stood for his ideals for years in the abyss, he isn't going to go now when he stands to win what he see's as everything. Given that the Labour party is now full of socialists there is no way he is going to lose.
The only play for the PLP is to declare UDI.
-
Labour is historically a coalition between unions, membership and MPs. Blair downgraded the unions, and the MPs want to downgrade the membership, which Corbyn relies on, so there is a kind of civil war. I think also the Blair/Brownites fear deselection if there is a general election, and are getting in their retaliation first.
-
Corbyn has done this for years whilst I disagree with his politics he has stood for his ideals for years in the abyss, he isn't going to go now when he stands to win what he see's as everything. Given that the Labour party is now full of socialists there is no way he is going to lose.
The only play for the PLP is to declare UDI.
It is very difficult to get inside the head of someone like that. How does he imagine anything good is going to come out of his ridiculous stand? He has just paralysed the whole party.
If the party don't get rid of Corbyn it will be very bad news for Labour.
-
Labour is historically a coalition between unions, membership and MPs. Blair downgraded the unions, and the MPs want to downgrade the membership, which Corbyn relies on, so there is a kind of civil war. I think also the Blair/Brownites fear deselection if there is a general election, and are getting in their retaliation first.
A Labour party of just Corbynisters would would be so irrelevant that they might even be eclipsed by another party of the right. I thing that is what UKIP are have in mind.
-
David Cameron tells Jeremy Corbyn to go, it's not in the countries interest for him to fight to stay like this.
I've got to say I think David Cameron is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36661200
-
Maybe so, especially as so many have resigned and seem to have lost confidence in him. Yet Corbyn hasn't done anything wrong, it's his sins of omission that seem to be the problem. Everyone is baying for him - I even heard someone say that he secretly voted Brexit!
-
It is very difficult to get inside the head of someone like that. How does he imagine anything good is going to come out of his ridiculous stand? He has just paralysed the whole party.
If the party don't get rid of Corbyn it will be very bad news for Labour.
Oh come on I don't agree with JCs politics but he is very principled and is standing up for his ideals. As he see's it this is fight for the Labour party, does it become a Socialist party and stand up for those ideals or does it go back to the centre and fight for power.
You, me, the PLP all may think he can't win a general election but he might not, and even then he's not going to sell out now.
The PLP need to accept they have lost and declare UDI, its open war and deselection is inevitable unless they act.
-
Oh come on I don't agree with JCs politics but he is very principled and is standing up for his ideals. As he see's it this is fight for the Labour party, does it become a Socialist party and stand up for those ideals or does it go back to the centre and fight for power.
You, me, the PLP all may think he can't win a general election but he might not, and even then he's not going to sell out now.
The PLP need to accept they have lost and declare UDI, its open war and deselection is inevitable unless they act.
I think it's the siege of Stalingrad in Jeremy's mind, it's gone way beyond plain stubbornness. They need to call the men in white coats.
-
Corbyn has done this for years whilst I disagree with his politics he has stood for his ideals for years in the abyss, he isn't going to go now when he stands to win what he see's as everything. Given that the Labour party is now full of socialists there is no way he is going to lose.
The only play for the PLP is to declare UDI.
I don't think Corbyn has ever been loyal to the Labour party, just used it as a convenient platform for his Leftie type views. So he has no concerns for the health of the party only for his lot to carry on. So he'll just keep going til something snaps.
-
Labour is historically a coalition between unions, membership and MPs. Blair downgraded the unions, and the MPs want to downgrade the membership, which Corbyn relies on, so there is a kind of civil war. I think also the Blair/Brownites fear deselection if there is a general election, and are getting in their retaliation first.
I'm not sure how all this is going to work with the time frame I think we are talking about here. If a GE is called after the Tories elect their leader won't this be pretty soon after this? When will Article 50 be implemented - before or after the GE? If the GE process takes some time after the Tory leader is installed and then Art 50 is activated the EU will not be happy.
So looking at your comments, will the Labour machine have time to vote in a new leader and all that that fighting will entail, and then deselect all, or most of, their candidates for a GE. Just seems they will be half dressed for the ball...?
-
It is very difficult to get inside the head of someone like that. How does he imagine anything good is going to come out of his ridiculous stand? He has just paralysed the whole party.
If the party don't get rid of Corbyn it will be very bad news for Labour.
No it's not. He's fixated on his agenda like a dog with a bone. He isn't going to let go.
-
Anyone who seriously believes that Jeremy's actions are doing Labour any good might like to watch this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/36664672
-
I don't think Corbyn has ever been loyal to the Labour party, just used it as a convenient platform for his Leftie type views.
The Labour Party is meant to be a party of the left.
-
The Labour Party is meant to be a party of the left.
Yes I know, but there are different positions that are seen as being on the left/hard left etc. Corbyn's are not geared to be entrenched in the Labour party machine, hence all the upset. And I have my doubts whether he cares much for the Labour party machine.
-
The Labour Party is meant to be a party of the left.
You are replying to Jack Knave who thinks that Nigel Farage is an anti Neo liberal capitalist
-
Yes I know, but there are different positions that are seen as being on the left/hard left etc. Corbyn's are not geared to be entrenched in the Labour party machine, hence all the upset. And I have my doubts whether he cares much for the Labour party machine.
He is there because of it, and believes he will stay because of it.
-
He is there because of it, and believes he will stay because of it.
No on actually knows for sure what he believes, he might well believe that he was appointed by aliens from the planet Zog for all we know. The only thing that we can conclude that whatever it is he believes, it's pretty irrational.
-
I don't think Corbyn has ever been loyal to the Labour party, just used it as a convenient platform for his Leftie type views. So he has no concerns for the health of the party only for his lot to carry on. So he'll just keep going til something snaps.
You are talking about the Labour party like its a static thing, it has a history of battles between the socialists and centre left. Corbyn, and those that support him main concern is fighting for their ideals, the centre left are fighting for theirs.
Its not the good guys vs the bad guys.
-
No on actually knows for sure what he believes, he might well believe that he was appointed by aliens from the planet Zog for all we know. The only thing that we can conclude that whatever it is he believes, it's pretty irrational.
He is a socialist, I'm not but I'm not labelling him irrational, it is a perfectly respectable political position.
-
No on actually knows for sure what he believes, he might well believe that he was appointed by aliens from the planet Zog for all we know. The only thing that we can conclude that whatever it is he believes, it's pretty irrational.
No, it's very clear what he believes, unless you want to bring hard solipsism into it, in which case that's a truism.
And while I agree with you that he is wrong, simply sticking irrational on it isn't an argument.
-
He is a socialist, I'm not but I'm not labelling him irrational, it is a perfectly respectable political position.
Personally I would define socialism as irrational, but that aside, he is unlikely to actually help his cause by his ludicrous action. As Cameron pointed out, the only ones who gain from this are the Tories and the country has lost an opposition party. UKIP meanwhile are now in a position where they could replace Labour.
Well done Jeremy!
-
No, it's very clear what he believes, unless you want to bring hard solipsism into it, in which case that's a truism.
And while I agree with you that he is wrong, simply sticking irrational on it isn't an argument.
He is not fighting a winnable battle, that is irrational. If he leaves there is a chance he will be replaced by someone who shares at lease some of his views and the party can move on. If he stays Labour will be unelectable and lose loads of seats at the next election - even worse, it will lose many of them to UKIP - so much for socialism!
The only ray of hope is that the Three Quid Votes might work for Angela Eagle this time - who knows, I might buy one myself, not much more than a Lotto ticket and more chance of winning. :)
-
Problem.
You have a general election.
You have the conservatives who IMO have basically destroyed the uk with their ideals of democracy and handing the choices over to the public vote. ( both the Scottish and the Eu one )
Then You have the liberal democrats .... Who appear to have left the building ..... and no longer seem to have a voice anymore.
Then there is the Labour Party which is falling apart, resigning in large numbers and unable to organise a piss up at a brewery or even get the leader to step down when he doesn't have any support.
Which of this lot is actually worth voting for?
As far as I can see none of them have acted in the countries interest.
Liberal democrats don't seem to have much of voice anymore.
I don't want UKIP to get in, but I don't want to vote for conservative or labour either.
:(
If enough people feel as fed up as I do, goodness only knows who will get in. :o
I'm so disallusioned with the whole flippin scenario, if I wasn't concerned about UKIP getting in, I'd stay home and not bother.
As it is, I feel I ought to vote for either Conservative or labour so UKIP don't pass the post >:( I feel I have a responsibility towards others in the uk who might suffer if he got in)
But I don't really want to vote for any of em :(
-
Dear World Gone totally Bonkers,
Who would I want right now running the country.
Cameron, the man who broke Britain, no.
Boris, seriously! I was quite happy with him playing silly buggers with London ( sorry London ) but can you imagine this man negotiating a brexit deal.
Actually, do I want a Tory government, no, their austerity programme has failed Britain, of course they did have to make cuts, they were handed a country hit by a banking crisis, but they targeted the weak, they have failed to invest in the NHS properly, they slashed council budgets, which has trickled down to the ordinary man/woman in the street.
The Tories and previous Blairite governments have failed the ordinary man, this is why so many Labour supporters have registered a protest UKIP vote, the Tories and Labour failed to address immigration properly, yes there is an influx of EU migrants, but your ordinary man did not see any investment in their area to address their needs.
Unemployment and the NHS crisis was put at the feet of immigration, no mention of Tory failure to invest, it's the migrants fault, shameful.
What about Farage, Mr Who's got the last laugh now, no, and this man should be locked away until we have sorted out what we are going to do about brexit.
Who is the one person still asking important questions in the House of Common, who is the one person asking for investment in the country, who was the one person who was honest about brexit.
Who knows that a totally capitalist society is a busted flush, who knows that we can't keep lurching from one crash to another, who knows that to make a country successful you need to invest in that country, give it the ways and means and not put up barriers, free education for all, invest in the unemployed, give them the training needed, free, that is an investment for the long term.
Who is that man, Mr Corbyn, the world is turning, you can either lurch even farther to the right, see a further rise in hatred or accept that we need to think differently, share the wealth and this country will flourish, do not and all we are doing is storing up further misery for our children.
Mr Corbyn is no great orator, but he does know how to fix this country, time to stop the sound bite and listen to commonsense.
Of course, having said all the above, Nicola Sturgeon can't be the UK Prime Minister, well can she :o :o
Gonnagle.
-
Dear World Gone totally Bonkers,
Who would I want right now running the country.
Cameron, the man who broke Britain, no.
Boris, seriously! I was quite happy with him playing silly buggers with London ( sorry London ) but can you imagine this man negotiating a brexit deal.
Actually, do I want a Tory government, no, their austerity programme has failed Britain, of course they did have to make cuts, they were handed a country hit by a banking crisis, but they targeted the weak, they have failed to invest in the NHS properly, they slashed council budgets, which has trickled down to the ordinary man/woman in the street.
The Tories and previous Blairite governments have failed the ordinary man, this is why so many Labour supporters have registered a protest UKIP vote, the Tories and Labour failed to address immigration properly, yes there is an influx of EU migrants, but your ordinary man did not see any investment in their area to address their needs.
Unemployment and the NHS crisis was put at the feet of immigration, no mention of Tory failure to invest, it's the migrants fault, shameful.
What about Farage, Mr Who's got the last laugh now, no, and this man should be locked away until we have sorted out what we are going to do about brexit.
Who is the one person still asking important questions in the House of Common, who is the one person asking for investment in the country, who was the one person who was honest about brexit.
Who knows that a totally capitalist society is a busted flush, who knows that we can't keep lurching from one crash to another, who knows that to make a country successful you need to invest in that country, give it the ways and means and not put up barriers, free education for all, invest in the unemployed, give them the training needed, free, that is an investment for the long term.
Who is that man, Mr Corbyn, the world is turning, you can either lurch even farther to the right, see a further rise in hatred or accept that we need to think differently, share the wealth and this country will flourish, do not and all we are doing is storing up further misery for our children.
Mr Corbyn is no great orator, but he does know how to fix this country, time to stop the sound bite and listen to commonsense.
Of course, having said all the above, Nicola Sturgeon can't be the UK Prime Minister, well can she :o :o
Gonnagle.
Strangely, Cameron seems to be one of the few people who have the interests of Labour at heart.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36661200
Corbyn is no great orator, and no great thinker - if he was he would realise the damage he is doing.
-
Mr Corbyn is no great orator, but he does know how to fix this country, time to stop the sound bite and listen to commonsense.
Also Apple Pie and Mother Love.
Of course, having said all the above, Nicola Sturgeon can't be the UK Prime Minister, well can she :o :o
No thanks I believe in equal rights, apartheid based on nationality would not be welcome.
-
He is not fighting a winnable battle, that is irrational.
If he sees winning that the Labour party moves to a more socialist outlook then it is winnable.
The Socialists won't surrender, the centre-left won't surrender, a split is inevitable the fight is over who gets to call themselves Labour.
-
Dear Lapsed,
Listening to sound bite old fella, what damage is he doing, asking to invest in Britain, sound advice as far as I am concerned, and compared to what Cameron has done, any damage Mr Corbyn is doing pales into insignificance.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Jakswan,
You are like a old gramophone record, the needle is stuck, socialist, centre left, far left, liberal, far right, right of centre, it's over, stop using all the old cliches, you don't have to be any of the above, start thinking about words like fairness, equality, compassion.
The old ways are done, we can have a mixture of all the above, start asking what is good for the country, not just a certain section of the country but all the country.
Gonnagle.
-
If he sees winning that the Labour party moves to a more socialist outlook then it is winnable.
It's as if he is wearing a Virtual Reality headset showing 1970's newsreels.
The Socialists won't surrender, the centre-left won't surrender, a split is inevitable the fight is over who gets to call themselves Labour.
The Socialist are a tiny but active minority - they can never win an election. If Labour can't force them back into the woodwork they are finished.
Interestingly, I am receiving emails from friends who are Labour supporters asking me to vote for Eagle - and I think I might do that.
-
Dear Lapsed,
Listening to sound bite old fella, what damage is he doing, asking to invest in Britain, sound advice as far as I am concerned, and compared to what Cameron has done, any damage Mr Corbyn is doing pales into insignificance.
Gonnagle.
I know everyone in the Labour party hates Blair (and even to mention that name is like praising Hitler) . . . but he was certainly right about one thing.
It doesn't matter what ideals and concerns you might have, if you are not in power you can achieve nothing.
It looks like that is a lesson that Labour are going to have to learn all over again.
-
One problem is out First Past the Post voting system encourages the maintenance of only two parties. It is supposed to produce "strong" government but in reality it fosters the ideals of a rather small group of people.
The Labour Party is an anachronism. It is a fusion of two political strands - socialism and working class conservatism (small c). The latter stand seems to have been picked up by UKIP.
-
Dear World Gone totally Bonkers,
Who would I want right now running the country.
...
Of course, having said all the above, Nicola Sturgeon can't be the UK Prime Minister, well can she :o :o
Gonnagle.
Why not?
-
Why not?
Difficult to be a UK Prime Minister if you are not in the UK Parliament.
-
If there is a GE then she can remain leader of the SNP and get a seat in Westminster.
She will need to ally the SNP in a coalition with one or more other party (depending on what is left standing after the party leader elections) with a plan and deals for PM position and getting to Brexit, leaving Scotland and maybe NI in the EU with England and Wales with a decent deal but without freedom of movement.
Maybe impossible practically, but at least in theory she could be PM.
-
Dear Udayana,
Another GE, oh boy! Will I just lie down this time, vote SNP, I suppose I should follow my own advice, old politics is done, time to move on, Cameron really is a prick, the man who finally broke Britain for good.
I suppose I can reminisce over the old ways, English votes for English folks, Labour and the SNP coming together to stuff the Tories, all those questions gone :(
Yes it makes sense, no need to worry about UKIP, just make sure our border is strong enough to keep them out, yes I will now be more upbeat about an Independent Scotland, I can always drag my Union flag out when her Maj gives us a visit. ;)
Gonnagle.
-
You are like a old gramophone record, the needle is stuck, socialist, centre left, far left, liberal, far right, right of centre, it's over, stop using all the old cliches, you don't have to be any of the above, start thinking about words like fairness, equality, compassion.
Well you don't have to be any of those things you are a mindless apple pie and mother love guy peddling easy answers. For those of us in reality those political ideals are broadly followed by every political party in the world.
The old ways are done, we can have a mixture of all the above, start asking what is good for the country, not just a certain section of the country but all the country.
I think you are so locked up in your own dream world that you seriously think no one but you wants to do what is best for the country, really? Stop this patronising claptrap.
-
It's as if he is wearing a Virtual Reality headset showing 1970's newsreels.
The Socialist are a tiny but active minority - they can never win an election. If Labour can't force them back into the woodwork they are finished.
Well two things, first they don't think they can never win an election.
Secondly, even if they did do you think they should change their political outlook? You could live in a society that mainly wanted an autocratic theocracy and be a liberal minded democrat, would it make sense for me to say to you 'hey, just give up on this liberal stuff you will just have to be a supporter of theocracy because you will never get into power'.
You would reply 'sorry but I'm not giving up on my ideals', wouldn't you?
Interestingly, I am receiving emails from friends who are Labour supporters asking me to vote for Eagle - and I think I might do that.
Good!
-
Dear Jakswan,
Well you don't have to be any of those things you are a mindless apple pie and mother love guy peddling easy answers. For those of us in reality those political ideals are broadly followed by every political party in the world.
In the world!! yes that's why we have Trump doing so well, send the ragheads home, that's why Putin is in power, our way or the highway, that's why the far right in Europe are gaining ground, and that's why we voted brexit, it is all the fault of immigrants.
My answers are not easy answers, reduce or totally get rid of trident, increase and train our troops on the ground, give them the equipment they need, increase our air force and navy, not only for conflict but to send them to disaster areas, renationalise the railway, allow our population to travel to work without breaking the bank, more money in their pockets means more money to spend on goods which increases productivity, stop messing about with education, stop telling our kids that university is the only goal, we need plumbers, electricians, builders, make education free for everybody, education is a tried and tested way to increase a countries productivity, open up colleges not shut them, make leisure centres free or only charge a nominal fee, better health decreases the impact on our NHS.
Not easy just commonsense.
Gonnagle.
-
With Boris gone, just imagine if Labour were united behind their leader. Just a pipe-dream really.
-
Well two things, first they don't think they can never win an election.
That is just plain simple delusion.
Secondly, even if they did do you think they should change their political outlook? You could live in a society that mainly wanted an autocratic theocracy and be a liberal minded democrat, would it make sense for me to say to you 'hey, just give up on this liberal stuff you will just have to be a supporter of theocracy because you will never get into power'.
You would reply 'sorry but I'm not giving up on my ideals', wouldn't you?
That is based on a fallacy, we do live in a democracy and that means we use democratic processes to bring about change (as opposed to locking-up or shooting the opposition).
Politics is the art of the possible - not a flight of fantasy.
-
With Boris gone, just imagine if Labour were united behind their leader. Just a pipe-dream really.
I'm afraid that if the public had to choose between Boris and Corbyn, Boris would win hands down - That is probably a sad reflection on the electorate, but it just the way it is.
-
I'm afraid that if the public had to choose between Boris and Corbyn, Boris would win hands down - That is probably a sad reflection on the electorate, but it just the way it is.
Boris isn't standing he has just pulled out!
-
Boris isn't standing he has just pulled out!
That's the first bit of good news I've heard for a long time.
It seems to leave May as favourite!
-
That's the first bit of good news I've heard for a long time.
As long as Gove doesn't get it. I think Theresa May is the best on offer.
-
Dear Floo,
That is probably the smartest move the Tories have made in a long time, so it does look like May will be our next PM :o
Gonnagle.
-
Well, my respect for Gove has gone up, a clever assassin. But assassins don't usually win votes.
-
Well, my respect for Gove has gone up, a clever assassin. But assassins don't usually win votes.
I hope not!
-
Dear Matron,
It's all very clever, it's like it has been stage managed, their house will be in order much faster than Labour :o
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Matron,
It's all very clever, it's like it has been stage managed, their house will be in order much faster than Labour :o
Gonnagle.
Somebody usually has to commit suicide, it might as well be Labour.
-
I have heard death threats have been made to MPs who aren't supporting Corbyn!
-
Well, my respect for Gove has gone up, a clever assassin. But assassins don't usually win votes.
You mean you had respect for Gove?
-
I have heard death threats have been made to MPs who aren't supporting Corbyn!
There are some pretty unsavoury characters lurking in dark recesses of the Far Left.
-
Well, my respect for Gove has gone up, a clever assassin. But assassins don't usually win votes.
Not a fan of "House of Cards" then?
-
I've even heard people on the left talk of assassinating an MP. I don't think it could happen in England. <sarcasm>
-
My answers are not easy answers, reduce or totally get rid of trident, increase and train our troops on the ground, give them the equipment they need, increase our air force and navy, not only for conflict but to send them to disaster areas, renationalise the railway, allow our population to travel to work without breaking the bank, more money in their pockets means more money to spend on goods which increases productivity, stop messing about with education, stop telling our kids that university is the only goal, we need plumbers, electricians, builders, make education free for everybody, education is a tried and tested way to increase a countries productivity, open up colleges not shut them, make leisure centres free or only charge a nominal fee, better health decreases the impact on our NHS.
So mostly a left wing idealistic agenda, some of which, not everyone, will agree with. Lets take one policy:-
stop telling our kids that university is the only goal, we need plumbers, electricians, builders, make education free for everybody, education is a tried and tested way to increase a countries productivity, open up colleges not shut them
So you want to encourage kids into apprenticeships rather than further education, but want to make further education free and open more colleges. Care to explain the apparent contradiction and who will pay for this?
Not easy just commonsense.
You forget to mention apple pie and mother love.
-
Dear Jakswan,
So mostly a left wing idealistic agenda, some of which, not everyone, will agree with. Lets take one policy:-
Aye that's me, Mr Left Wing, do the left wing want to have the best most fully equipped fighting force in the world.
So you want to encourage kids into apprenticeships rather than further education, but want to make further education free and open more colleges. Care to explain the apparent contradiction and who will pay for this?
No not rather than, also, no contradiction, we all pay, everybody including the big companies who take but do not give back, tax them properly, there is, and it's a fact, enough money to go round, if done fairly.
Apparently the Bank of England has 250 billion going spare. >:(
Gonnagle.
-
With Boris gone, just imagine if Labour were united behind their leader.
Then we'd have been even more definitely for Brexit, wiggi.
-
That's the first bit of good news I've heard for a long time.
Not if Gove gets in.
It seems to leave May as favourite!
She's a brave woman.
-
Aye that's me, Mr Left Wing, do the left wing want to have the best most fully equipped fighting force in the world.
Left wing denotes tendency you can be right / left wing on a variety of issues.
No not rather than, also, no contradiction, we all pay, everybody including the big companies who take but do not give back, tax them properly, there is, and it's a fact, enough money to go round, if done fairly.
So more tax for education and apprenticeships, if we want better education wouldn't we be better taking off the Scottish Parliament I hear SNP have made a bit of a mess of it recently.
The big companies left when they heard you were in charge Gonzo. :)
Apparently the Bank of England has 250 billion going spare. >:(
[/quote]
So leave the pound and banks collapse?
-
Dear Jakswan,
The big companies left when they heard you were in charge Gonzo. :)
Then let them leave, that will be 63.5 million customers they will lose.
Gonnagle.
-
So you want to encourage kids into apprenticeships rather than further education, but want to make further education free and open more colleges. Care to explain the apparent contradiction and who will pay for this?
It would help if you knew what you are talking about.
The study mode for electricians, plumbers etc is "Further education". "Higher education" is that conducted at first degree level and higher.
Once upon a time we had a superb further education system which allowed entry into vocational education and also lifetime education. This both provided appropriate education and training as well as opportunities for retraining for a very wide range of occupations as well as the opportunity to allow people to re-enter academic study at any age.
A brilliant wizzo idea of the Blair government was that 50% of school leavers should go straight into higher education. This, it was argued, would remove the unflattering comparison of the UK with other countries (specifically the USA and western Europe) in which UK universities recruited less than half the number of students that other countries did, What the comparison did not include were:
(a) the high drop out rate in other countries - the UK completion rate was over 90%
(b) the relatively favourable student/staff ratio in the UK HE system - teachers were not remote and there was the opportunity for tutorial not just lecture modes of tuition
(c) the ability to produce high quality graduates in three years instead of five or six.
The real reason for encouraging university entrance was to reduce structural unemployment and make employment statistics look more favourable.
We now have several times the number of "universities" than before this increase. The cost of the innovation has been so great that it has been decided to let the students themselves bear the cost - they graduate now with a huge debt. A (possibly unforeseen) consequence of this is that they no longer perceive themselves to be students - bearing some responsibility for the quality of their own progress - but as consumers able to blame others for their own lack of progress.
Do you really think that the situation we have ended up with really benefits the nation?
-
He is there because of it, and believes he will stay because of it.
The 'because of it' is in fact a load of people who joined at the last minute for Ł3, not because of the longstanding Labour party machine - except of course the naďve twats who thought it would be quaint to nominate him just for completion of the breath of beliefs in the party.
-
You are talking about the Labour party like its a static thing, it has a history of battles between the socialists and centre left. Corbyn, and those that support him main concern is fighting for their ideals, the centre left are fighting for theirs.
Its not the good guys vs the bad guys.
But the radical left, and all that, tend not to like taking power because all their dreams fall apart when reality hits them. They prefer to be on the side lines chanting their slogans and shouting down those in power. Their very policies, if successful, destroy the very need for them and their quest to help the poor and down trodden. That is where Corbyn is and perhaps unconsciously knows that the Labour party represent this mainstream, ruling lot that they like to decry and so he has no real loyalty to it, as, if he is successful in it his very cause and beliefs will vanish and as such is very reason for living.
-
If he sees winning that the Labour party moves to a more socialist outlook then it is winnable.
The Socialists won't surrender, the centre-left won't surrender, a split is inevitable the fight is over who gets to call themselves Labour.
I can't either see any other outcome now for Labour. The PLP have made a stand which is unlikely to win and they can't back down without looking right dickheads and spineless. The only card they have for the leadership vote is project fear of Labour losing a GE.
-
That's the first bit of good news I've heard for a long time.
It seems to leave May as favourite!
Gove's there. May's a remainer, that may prove difficult with the grassroots.
-
Dear Matron,
It's all very clever, it's like it has been stage managed, their house will be in order much faster than Labour :o
Gonnagle.
And then the GE for a final killer blow.
-
Somebody usually has to commit suicide, it might as well be Labour.
If the new Tory leader tries Brexit light then there will be war in their house as well, and with a small majority that could be fatal.
-
Someone said it costs Ł3 to join the labour membership.
It costs Ł129 to join the conservatives near me. Ł 250 for a couple.
But then they seem to have posh social clubs to support.
???
-
If the new Tory leader tries Brexit light then there will be war in their house as well, and with a small majority that could be fatal.
I'd say that the PM will be May and she will make Gove minister for Brexit. As one of the most prominent and credible Brexiteers, most people will accept whatever he come up with.
UKIP will obviously protest whatever deal we get, otherwise they would have lost their purpose in life.
-
I'd say that the PM will be May and she will make Gove minister for Brexit. As one of the most prominent and credible Brexiteers, most people will accept whatever he come up with.
UKIP will obviously protest whatever deal we get, otherwise they would have lost their purpose in life.
No I think Gove like Johnson will have Bottled it by then.
-
No I think Gove like Johnson will have Bottled it by then.
I'd say the attitude of the next PM (if not overtly stated) will be "You made the mess, you sort it"
If he failed to rise to the challenge his name would be mud.
-
Dear Lapsed and Vlad,
Nice conversation gentlemen, May becomes PM and she keeps Gove in her cabinet with the threat, you broke it, you fix it, but I think Vlad is right, Gove does not have the balls, he did not have a plan going into this referendum, he certainly does not have a plan now.
Nobody has a plan, not Labour not Tory, Sturgeon has a plan, but then she has always had a plan. :(
Dear Harrowby,
Post 131, excellent post sir, thank you.
Gonnagle.
-
This spat has nothing to do with "Red on Red".
It seems more like the "Red" Thatcher Blairites lashing out in their death throws....
-
Dear Harrowby,
Post 131, excellent post sir, thank you.
You want less universities now?
-
I'd say that the PM will be May and she will make Gove minister for Brexit. As one of the most prominent and credible Brexiteers, most people will accept whatever he come up with.
UKIP will obviously protest whatever deal we get, otherwise they would have lost their purpose in life.
Don't May and Gove hate each other? I know Gove has rubbed a few up the wrong way, just can't remember if he's done that to May.
As for UKIP there is plenty for them to fight for. There is talk of some parties standing on a manifesto of re-joining the EU and UKIP are morphing into a party from a movement. And with the two main parties starting to splinter this would be the perfect time to step in and take power, of some sorts, probably part of a coalition.
-
I'd say that the PM will be May and she will make Gove minister for Brexit. As one of the most prominent and credible Brexiteers, most people will accept whatever he come up with.
Whoever becomes PM I suspect he or she will appoint a minister for Brexit who is of the same view as to the preferred post-Brexit deal.
So I think that makes it very unlikely that May will appoint Gove - because although May wanted to remain, if we don't her key priority will be to retain access to the free market. Gove isn't of that view - he and Leadsom are rather sniffy about the benefits of the free market.
I think May will appoint someone to lead the negotiations who favours EEA membership.
-
No I think Gove like Johnson will have Bottled it by then.
The thing about Gove is that he is hen pecked so he'll do what ever his wife tells him to do. I'm not sure where she stands but it seems to be with the Murdoch press....?
-
Dear Jakswan,
You want less universities now?
Aye!! that's what I want, I want seats of learning closed, ya thoroughly nice person that you are >:(
Dear Mods,
Any chance you could give Jakswan a wee job in the back office, keep him away from the forum, he is daein ma heid in. :'(
Gonnagle.
-
I'd say the attitude of the next PM (if not overtly stated) will be "You made the mess, you sort it"
If he failed to rise to the challenge his name would be mud.
If the next PM is a remainer then I'd would have thought that they would try and get a Brexit light deal.
-
If the next PM is a remainer then I'd would have thought that they would try and get a Brexit light deal.
EEA in other words.
Point is though - is there a mandate for the UK joining EEA - not sure there is and it would have the 'it's all about migration' Brexiters spitting blood.
-
Whoever becomes PM I suspect he or she will appoint a minister for Brexit who is of the same view as to the preferred post-Brexit deal.
So I think that makes it very unlikely that May will appoint Gove - because although May wanted to remain, if we don't her key priority will be to retain access to the free market. Gove isn't of that view - he and Leadsom are rather sniffy about the benefits of the free market.
I think May will appoint someone to lead the negotiations who favours EEA membership.
Minister for Brexit will be a 'poisoned chalice' - it will be impossible to get the 'Dream Deal' that the Brexiteers fantasied about, therefore who better to put in than Gove. Let him do the best he can and go with that option, leaving Gove to take all the flack.
-
Minister for Brexit will be a 'poisoned chalice' - it will be impossible to get the 'Dream Deal' that the Brexiteers fantasied about, therefore who better to put in than Gove. Let him do the best he can and go with that option, leaving Gove to take all the flack.
The PM will require the minister for Brexit to be negotiating on her terms, so they will need to agree which are the priority red-line areas (e.g. maintaining free market access, not having free movement) - the PM and minister for Brexit will be aligned on those view - I don't believe May and Gove are.
-
EEA in other words.
Point is though - is there a mandate for the UK joining EEA - not sure there is and it would have the 'it's all about migration' Brexiters spitting blood.
There is no mandate about any particular solution to the current situation. All we know is that a small majority of the people do not want the solution to involve us being members of the EU.
The more I think about this, the more I realise the current state of affairs is just crazy.
-
The PM will require the minister for Brexit to be negotiating on her terms, so they will need to agree which are the priority red-line areas (e.g. maintaining free market access, not having free movement) - the PM and minister for Brexit will be aligned on those view - I don't believe May and Gove are.
Of course, and it is quite possible that negotiations will fail - again I say, who better than Gove - he was the one who claimed these things were going to be quite straightforward.
-
Of course, and it is quite possible that negotiations will fail - again I say, who better than Gove - he was the one who claimed these things were going to be quite straightforward.
Thinking about this some more, there will need to be far more than just a Minister for Brexit, there will need to be a whole team.
Perhaps the smartest political move is to make this a kind of Brexit team of national unity, bringing in individuals from all the main parties. It would be hard not to agree to be involved in the most important decision in our lifetime's in the 'national interest'. Doing that would spread around the blame, make it much harder for the deal to become a party political football.
I also think it may be that the people brought in won't be those most closely involved in the referendum campaign - given the intensely polarising nature of the debate and the dishonesty then the key figures are going to be damaged goods - so no Johnson, no Gove, no Leadsom, no Farage, no Cameron, no Osborne, no Corbyn etc, etc. Also to bring in some of the more 'respected' elder statesmen might be good - those that command somewhat greater respect than the shrill whippersnappers. And including a number in the Lords so who aren't going to be worried about getting kicked out at the next election.
So here's a punt in the dark
Minister for Brexit - William Hague
Ministerial team
Michael Howard
Alan Johnson
Frank Field
Paddy Ashdown
Duncan Carswell
Alex Salmond
Caroline Lucas
Just a thought
-
Thinking about this some more, there will need to be far more than just a Minister for Brexit, there will need to be a whole team.
Perhaps the smartest political move is to make this a kind of Brexit team of national unity, bringing in individuals from all the main parties. It would be hard not to agree to be involved in the most important decision in our lifetime's in the 'national interest'. Doing that would spread around the blame, make it much harder for the deal to become a party political football.
I also think it may be that the people brought in won't be those most closely involved in the referendum campaign - given the intensely polarising nature of the debate and the dishonesty then the key figures are going to be damaged goods - so no Johnson, no Gove, no Leadsom, no Farage, no Cameron, no Osborne, no Corbyn etc, etc. Also to bring in some of the more 'respected' elder statesmen might be good - those that command somewhat greater respect than the shrill whippersnappers. And including a number in the Lords so who aren't going to be worried about getting kicked out at the next election.
So here's a punt in the dark
Minister for Brexit - William Hague
Ministerial team
Michael Howard
Alan Johnson
Frank Field
Paddy Ashdown
Duncan Carswell
Alex Salmond
Caroline Lucas
Just a thought
Surely you need someone with experience in such matters like Roy Hodgson?
-
Surely you need someone with experience in such matters like Roy Hodgson?
;D - blimey, has he been elevated to the House of Lords?
-
You want less universities now?
D minus for use of English. Learn the difference between "less" and "fewer".
What I want is a sufficient number of appropriate institutions which can be used to develop the diverse skills needed for the United Kingdom to be a successful player in the modern world. This will require a range of educational and training institutions and not the imposition of a single model.
-
D minus for use of English. Learn the difference between "less" and "fewer".
What I want is a sufficient number of appropriate institutions which can be used to develop the diverse skills needed for the United Kingdom to be a successful player in the modern world. This will require a range of educational and training institutions and not the imposition of a single model.
Problem is that the only terms people want to accept are 'university' and 'degree', hence if you haven't got a degree and didn't go to a university you aren't worth a bean.
So guess what is happening now - the government is throwing money at universities to set up ... degree apprenticeships. Not enough money by the way to cover the employers' apprenticeship levy.
-
Dear Harrowby,
Please leave Jakswan alone, the poor sod is suffering from "Brexit" symptoms, a overwhelming feeling of "oh fuck what have I just done".
A common ailment at the moment, closely related to the ailment "Remain" symptoms, a overwhelming feeling of "oh fuck what have they just done".
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Harrowby,
Please leave Jakswan alone, the poor sod is suffering from "Brexit" symptoms, a overwhelming feeling of "oh fuck what have I just done".
A common ailment at the moment, closely related to the ailment "Remain" symptoms, a overwhelming feeling of "oh fuck what have they just done".
Gonnagle.
You mean Jack has developed ''Bricksit''?
-
EEA in other words.
Point is though - is there a mandate for the UK joining EEA - not sure there is and it would have the 'it's all about migration' Brexiters spitting blood.
This is the problem, leave was the vote. But some say a fudge will be done by getting a mandate from a early GE. This will mean some will go on a stay in manifesto (assuming Art 50 hasn't been triggered), other on the EEA type choice and some on a full out leave agenda.
-
Minister for Brexit will be a 'poisoned chalice' - it will be impossible to get the 'Dream Deal' that the Brexiteers fantasied about, therefore who better to put in than Gove. Let him do the best he can and go with that option, leaving Gove to take all the flack.
The whole government will pay in 2020. Chances are they'll get a halfway house and please no one.
-
This is the problem, leave was the vote. But some say a fudge will be done by getting a mandate from a early GE. This will mean some will go on a stay in manifesto (assuming Art 50 hasn't been triggered), other on the EEA type choice and some on a full out leave agenda.
But EEA is just as much 'leaving the EU' (which was the vote) as any other kind of settlement outside the EU. Clearly one you don't like, but there are other Brexiters who couldn't abide an isolationist WTO type approach with restrictions on freedom of movement.
So that's the crux of your problem - you all agree on what you are against (being a member of the EU) but you don't agree with what you are for.
-
D minus for use of English. Learn the difference between "less" and "fewer".
What I want is a sufficient number of appropriate institutions which can be used to develop the diverse skills needed for the United Kingdom to be a successful player in the modern world. This will require a range of educational and training institutions and not the imposition of a single model.
E for comprehension I was replying to Gonzo not you. If you want to start a topic on further education then feel free, I was exploring the Mother Love, Apple Pie thinking of the hard left.
-
Please leave Jakswan alone, the poor sod is suffering from "Brexit" symptoms, a overwhelming feeling of "oh fuck what have I just done".
More patronising claptrap, get a grip!
-
Thinking about this some more, there will need to be far more than just a Minister for Brexit, there will need to be a whole team.
Perhaps the smartest political move is to make this a kind of Brexit team of national unity, bringing in individuals from all the main parties. It would be hard not to agree to be involved in the most important decision in our lifetime's in the 'national interest'. Doing that would spread around the blame, make it much harder for the deal to become a party political football.
I also think it may be that the people brought in won't be those most closely involved in the referendum campaign - given the intensely polarising nature of the debate and the dishonesty then the key figures are going to be damaged goods - so no Johnson, no Gove, no Leadsom, no Farage, no Cameron, no Osborne, no Corbyn etc, etc. Also to bring in some of the more 'respected' elder statesmen might be good - those that command somewhat greater respect than the shrill whippersnappers. And including a number in the Lords so who aren't going to be worried about getting kicked out at the next election.
So here's a punt in the dark
Minister for Brexit - William Hague
Ministerial team
Michael Howard
Alan Johnson
Frank Field
Paddy Ashdown
Duncan Carswell
Alex Salmond
Caroline Lucas
Just a thought
I think you have an interesting idea there.
It would free up the Government to run the country and they would report to the gov and be guided by them.
Good career move for Alex Salmond ;)
Paddy Ashdown, he must be ancient by now.
-
Ancient he is but gorgeous as ever.
(Morning Rose btw)
-
But EEA is just as much 'leaving the EU' (which was the vote) as any other kind of settlement outside the EU. Clearly one you don't like, but there are other Brexiters who couldn't abide an isolationist WTO type approach with restrictions on freedom of movement.
So that's the crux of your problem - you all agree on what you are against (being a member of the EU) but you don't agree with what you are for.
The EEA status is not leaving the EU. You are still associated with it in some manner. Leave means leave, and total divorce from the EU's political project.
I have no problems as regards this as a remain vote would have been fine by me because the EU is breaking up from within and a substantial number of the peoples of Europe are fed up with it.
What the Leave result has done, even if it doesn't get us fully out, is to inspire other referendums on the EU with the EU membership. People in France and the Netherlands are calling for one and the Austrian Presidential elections are going to be re-run and Hofer of the Freedom Party will be offering one in his manifesto, and the Austrian people are fed up with the immigration problem. Portugal's socialist party coalition is push back against Brussels austerity requirements and Spain looks to be having a socialist party coalition as well. So things are looking up.... ;D
-
Getting back to the topic of the thread, Corbyn is looking more and more like that old guy from the Popular Front who was sitting on his own........"Splitter!!!"
-
The EEA status is not leaving the EU.
Yes it is - Norway are members of the EEA, they are not a member of the EU.
Being like Norway is clearly Brexit and absolutely consistent with the referendum question which asked whether we should remain a member of the EU or leave the EU.
You might not like it, but it is absolutely a completely valid version of Brexit - we would no longer be a member of the EU.
Problem for you, and Brexit in general is that as much as you might hate the notion of EEA membership, there are other Brexiters who hate your notion of Brexit.
It is now time for Brexiters to agree what they are for, not what they are against. And you won't find 52% in favour of any one version of Brexit, nor 48% or anything like it.
-
Getting back to the topic of the thread, Corbyn is looking more and more like that old guy from the Popular Front who was sitting on his own........"Splitter!!!"
Corbyn is the spectre leading Labour into total oblivion, who knows what will replace them!
-
Yes it is - Norway are members of the EEA, they are not a member of the EU.
Being like Norway is clearly Brexit and absolutely consistent with the referendum question which asked whether we should remain a member of the EU or leave the EU.
You might not like it, but it is absolutely a completely valid version of Brexit - we would no longer be a member of the EU.
Problem for you, and Brexit in general is that as much as you might hate the notion of EEA membership, there are other Brexiters who hate your notion of Brexit.
It is now time for Brexiters to agree what they are for, not what they are against. And you won't find 52% in favour of any one version of Brexit, nor 48% or anything like it.
But the EEA is subject to the political machinations of the EU and so is not Brexit i.e. they lack control of some of their policies like immigration control. Brexit was about taking back control and therefore means a total severing of the political ties with the EU/Brussels.
You seem to have failed to have notice that what happens next isn't subject to the Brexiteers, and their wishes, but how the Conservative party handle things.
-
Yes it is - Norway are members of the EEA, they are not a member of the EU.
Being like Norway is clearly Brexit and absolutely consistent with the referendum question which asked whether we should remain a member of the EU or leave the EU.
You might not like it, but it is absolutely a completely valid version of Brexit - we would no longer be a member of the EU.
Wow I agree so far with Davey, must go for a lie down.
Problem for you, and Brexit in general is that as much as you might hate the notion of EEA membership, there are other Brexiters who hate your notion of Brexit.
Hate is a strong word think we need get away from that sort of language. There are different opinions, on all sides, there would have been many versions of remain.
It is now time for Brexiters to agree what they are for, not what they are against. And you won't find 52% in favour of any one version of Brexit, nor 48% or anything like it.
Its time for the Parliamentary parties to decide and up-to us to decide to support them.
-
Corbyn is the spectre leading Labour into total oblivion, who knows what will replace them!
As my post indicated I think they will split. Corbyn and co. will fizzle out and the other lot will be like the LibDems, not dead but smelling funny as they ebb and flow from the political picture.
-
Its time for the Parliamentary parties to decide and up-to us to decide to support them.
and how would we do that. Surely we need the govt to tell us what they are intending and hold an election with other parties presenting what they will do.
-
As my post indicated I think they will split. Corbyn and co. will fizzle out and the other lot will be like the LibDems, not dead but smelling funny as they ebb and flow from the political picture.
You just mean ebb, not flow
-
You just mean ebb, not flow
I said like the LibDems. So that's ebbed for years and then a slow flow that peaks for 5 minutes before it washes quickly back to the ebbed position.
-
The EEA status is not leaving the EU.
Yes it is.
You are still associated with it in some manner. Leave means leave, and total divorce from the EU's political project.
When we put in article 50 we will be leaving. The nature of our relationship with the EU afterwards has yet to be decided.
What the Leave result has done, even if it doesn't get us fully out, is to inspire other referendums on the EU with the EU membership.
You say that like it's a good thing.
-
The EEA status is not leaving the EU.
Well, since there are EEA countries who are not members of the EU, and we have voted to leave the EU - it would seem logical to assume that EEA membership doesn't assume EU membership.
-
Yes it is.
No it is not. It is a deceitful argument presented by the whinging, poor losers, Remainers to stay in the EU's clutches.
When we put in article 50 we will be leaving. The nature of our relationship with the EU afterwards has yet to be decided.
But a requisite for that is that we have nothing to do with the EU's political project whatsoever. Most of the discussion will be economic, nothing else.
You say that like it's a good thing.
;) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;) ;) ;) ;) 8)
-
Well, since there are EEA countries who are not members of the EU, and we have voted to leave the EU - it would seem logical to assume that EEA membership doesn't assume EU membership.
But they are subject to the four founding principles of the Treaty of Rome so technically they are part of the EU, that is, the political project.
-
No it is not. It is a deceitful argument presented by the whinging, poor losers, Remainers to stay in the EU's clutches.
Wrong. Its is a matter of undeniable fact that Norway is not in the EU.
I sense desperation and denial on your part now that we are faced with the reality of your stupidity and your esteemed - I mean steaming - leader has deserted you.
-
Wrong. Its is a matter of undeniable fact that Norway is not in the EU.
I sense desperation and denial on your part now that we are faced with the reality of your stupidity and your esteemed - I mean steaming - leader has deserted you.
You have got me all wrong, I'm not desperate or in denial. What I say is correct, however, what we end up with is another question. The remainers are trying to trick the leavers that that is a fulfilment of their wishes and it is not.
-
You have got me all wrong, I'm not desperate or in denial.
You certainly come across as if you are. Why else are you denying matters of fact?
-
The remainers are trying to trick the leavers that that is a fulfilment of their wishes and it is not.
What are the wishes of the Leavers. It seems we have a spectrum of views from the Norway solution to full isolationism.
-
You certainly come across as if you are. Why else are you denying matters of fact?
You're the one doing that!!!
As Farage told the EP, they are all in denial - the ship is sinking!!!
-
What are the wishes of the Leavers. It seems we have a spectrum of views from the Norway solution to full isolationism.
I've already told you lot that leave means leave : out is out. It doesn't include EEA or any other arrangement like that. Leave means fully out of the EU's political project.
-
I've already told you lot that leave means leave : out is out.
Indeed, but you are under a misapprehension about what leaving the EU is.
It doesn't include EEA or any other arrangement like that.
Yes it does. Norway is not in the EU. End of.
So we have a spectrum of possible deals. We could have a Norway type deal, or a Switzerland type deal, or total isolationism or anything in between. These are all alternatives that fulfil the criterion of not being in the EU and none of your frothing at the mouth changes those facts.
-
Indeed, but you are under a misapprehension about what leaving the EU is.
Yes it does. Norway is not in the EU. End of.
So we have a spectrum of possible deals. We could have a Norway type deal, or a Switzerland type deal, or total isolationism or anything in between. These are all alternatives that fulfil the criterion of not being in the EU and none of your frothing at the mouth changes those facts.
Technically I am right, end of.
-
Technically I am right, end of.
Technically and actually you are wrong.
Here is a list of the EU member states.
http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/index_en.htm
Do you see Norway there?
No you don't. You are wrong.
-
Technically and actually you are wrong.
Here is a list of the EU member states.
http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/index_en.htm
Do you see Norway there?
No you don't. You are wrong.
Look at the bigger picture they are there in the system in some way. Being out is like the way the US, Canada, Australia, India, China and so on are out. That is Out!!! There is no other way.
-
Look at the bigger picture they are there in the system in some way. Being out is like the way the US, Canada, Australia, India, China and so on are out. That is Out!!! There is no other way.
which is irrelevant to the phrasing and positioning of the referendum. Especially the argument by exclamation marks you are using.
-
which is irrelevant to the phrasing and positioning of the referendum. Especially the argument by exclamation marks you are using.
Once again you are going to have to be more specific about what you mean. I'm not going to answer to my guesswork as to what you are trying to say.
-
Once again you are going to have to be more specific about what you mean. I'm not going to answer to my guesswork as to what you are trying to say.
The phrasing of the referendum and the campaigning of many on the Leave side covers Norway as out.
And simply putting a lot of exclamation marks at the end of a sentence is not an argument.
-
Look at the bigger picture they are there in the system in some way. Being out is like the way the US, Canada, Australia, India, China and so on are out. That is Out!!! There is no other way.
Norway is out.
-
The phrasing of the referendum and the campaigning of many on the Leave side covers Norway as out.
Again, you're going to have to qualify that with an explication!!!
What phrasing?
Being on the Leavers side is not a qualification to being the official and correct assessment on things. Only those who have been long term anti-EUers are, and more pertinently those of UKIP.
-
Indeed, but you are under a misapprehension about what leaving the EU is.
Yes it does. Norway is not in the EU. End of.
So we have a spectrum of possible deals. We could have a Norway type deal, or a Switzerland type deal, or total isolationism or anything in between. These are all alternatives that fulfil the criterion of not being in the EU and none of your frothing at the mouth changes those facts.
The only out there is is the way that the rest of the world is out, such as India and China.
-
Again, you're going to have to qualify that with an explication!!!
What phrasing?
Being on the Leavers side is not a qualification to being the official and correct assessment on things. Only those who have been long term anti-EUers are, and more pertinently those of UKIP.
Please cite the source that makes only these people able to be the 'official' and correct assessment in things!
Please explain what you mean by 'official'
Note the wording of the official referendum indicates you are officially wrong.
-
Please cite the source that makes only these people able to be the 'official' and correct assessment in things!
Please explain what you mean by 'official'
Note the wording of the official referendum indicates you are officially wrong.
Official as in technically correct, as per the stance of UKIP. If you leave something then you exit it in all forms, you cease to have any membership associations with it. Everyone else who says otherwise is wrong regardless of who they are.
-
Official as in technically correct, as per the stance of UKIP. If you leave something then you exit it in all forms, you cease to have any membership associations with it. Everyone else who says otherwise is wrong regardless of who they are.
No, the technical detail in the referendum is membership of the EU. You are technically and legally incorrect.
-
Official as in technically correct, as per the stance of UKIP. If you leave something then you exit it in all forms, you cease to have any membership associations with it. Everyone else who says otherwise is wrong regardless of who they are.
Rubbish, you simply cease to be a member. Any post referendum settlement in which the UK is no longer a member of the EU is consistent with that vote to leave. And that obviously includes being a member of the EEA like Norway.
-
The only out there is is the way that the rest of the world is out, such as India and China.
But we can never be like India or China in relations with the EU for the simply reason that we are in Europe (not Asia) and even if we leave the EU we will retain a land border with the EU and all our closest geographical partners will be on the EU, so we will have to maintain relationships with the EU that are irrelevant to China or India.
-
No, the technical detail in the referendum is membership of the EU. You are technically and legally incorrect.
So where is this set out? I hope you are not referring to the ballot paper wording.
-
Rubbish, you simply cease to be a member. Any post referendum settlement in which the UK is no longer a member of the EU is consistent with that vote to leave. And that obviously includes being a member of the EEA like Norway.
Where did the team membership crop up in any of the government etc. wordings?
-
So where is this set out? I hope you are not referring to the ballot paper wording.
Didn't you even bother to read the ballot paper JK.
Just to remind you, it was:
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
Any settlement that means we are no longer a member of the EU is consistent with having left the EU.
-
Where did the team membership crop up in any of the government etc. wordings?
See above - in the ballot paper wording.
-
But we can never be like India or China in relations with the EU for the simply reason that we are in Europe (not Asia) and even if we leave the EU we will retain a land border with the EU and all our closest geographical partners will be on the EU, so we will have to maintain relationships with the EU that are irrelevant to China or India.
Our physical closeness is neither here not there.
-
Didn't you even bother to read the ballot paper JK.
Just to remind you, it was:
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
Any settlement that means we are no longer a member of the EU is consistent with having left the EU.
Now you're just splitting hairs. ;D
-
Official as in technically correct, as per the stance of UKIP. If you leave something then you exit it in all forms, you cease to have any membership associations with it. Everyone else who says otherwise is wrong regardless of who they are.
Does UKIP's parliamentary party agree with that view Jack or does HE have a different view ha ha.
UKIP crashed the car Jack.
-
So where is this set out? I hope you are not referring to the ballot paper wording.
There are twenty eight nations in the EU. Norway is not one of them. That''s the end of it.
-
Now you're just splitting hairs. ;D
No I'm not - if we end up in the EEA like Norway we would have left the EU - the referendum mandate to leave would have been met.
That you don't like that outcome is, frankly, tough. The referendum didn't have your preferred option post-brexit on the ballot paper. Indeed it didn't have any post brexit option on the ballot paper, which is of course one of the major flaws in the process.
-
No I'm not - if we end up in the EEA like Norway we would have left the EU - the referendum mandate to leave would have been met.
That you don't like that outcome is, frankly, tough. The referendum didn't have your preferred option post-brexit on the ballot paper. Indeed it didn't have any post brexit option on the ballot paper, which is of course one of the major flaws in the process.
But some of the key points in the Leave campaign was on immigration, control and parliamentary sovereignty from EU laws and the points system to those coming here. That is what the people voted for and that excludes anything that includes freedom of movement of people, which would rule out the EEA and other such associations.
-
But some of the key points in the Leave campaign was on immigration, control and parliamentary sovereignty from EU laws and the points system to those coming here. That is what the people voted for and that excludes anything that includes freedom of movement of people, which would rule out the EEA and other such associations.
We have no idea 'what the people voted for' we only know what they voted against - being a member of the EU.
If we are hypothesising on reasons why people voted leave I would have thought that one of the major reason was believing the lie that there would be an extra Ł350m a week going into the NHS.
But there is another point - the result was very close, 52/48 so given that 48% voted for the status quo there is certainly no mandate for major change so surely the most appropriate way forward, taking account of the views of the electorate in the advisory referendum is to leave the EU but to do so in a manner that results in the most limited changes otherwise. In other words Norway style EEA.
-
But some of the key points in the Leave campaign was on immigration, control and parliamentary sovereignty from EU laws and the points system to those coming here. That is what the people voted for and that excludes anything that includes freedom of movement of people, which would rule out the EEA and other such associations.
But, obviously, there was no guarantee that "freedom of movement" would be removed. The leave campaign were not in a position to be able to promise anything, were not even a single party that could be given a mandate.
That is why an election or 2nd referendum is needed - either before Article 50 is triggered or when a negotiated deal can be put forward.
-
We have no idea 'what the people voted for' we only know what they voted against - being a member of the EU.
If we are hypothesising on reasons why people voted leave I would have thought that one of the major reason was believing the lie that there would be an extra Ł350m a week going into the NHS.
But there is another point - the result was very close, 52/48 so given that 48% voted for the status quo there is certainly no mandate for major change so surely the most appropriate way forward, taking account of the views of the electorate in the advisory referendum is to leave the EU but to do so in a manner that results in the most limited changes otherwise. In other words Norway style EEA.
My post stands. The leading argument to leave was the total control of immigration and so anything less than that is a betrayal of the result, and of the peoples' wishes.
-
But, obviously, there was no guarantee that "freedom of movement" would be removed. The leave campaign were not in a position to be able to promise anything, were not even a single party that could be given a mandate.
That is why an election or 2nd referendum is needed - either before Article 50 is triggered or when a negotiated deal can be put forward.
That's just stupid - a second referendum? - on what?
Leave was voted for so Art 50 needs to be triggered regardless. And for it to be done after negotiations is just ridiculous. You think they are going to spend years doing this just for the possibility that it could be rejected and start it all over again. ::). And how are the people going to know what is in the deal and make a judgement on it? How can those brainless fucks do that and who are they going to trust to tell them when politicians' veracity is rock bottom.
-
My post stands. The leading argument to leave was the total control of immigration and so anything less than that is a betrayal of the result, and of the peoples' wishes.
No it wasn't - it was one of a whole range of arguments and we don't know exactly the reasons why people voted as they did.
However we do have some idea from polling - so Lord Ashcroft has done extensive polling on reasons why people voted as they did. And controlling migration wasn't the top reason amongst leave voters, indeed only 33% of leave voters said that was the major reason for them voting leave. So that's just 17% of the total electorate see controlling migration as the key issue deciding their vote in the referendum.
-
That's just stupid - a second referendum? - on what?
No it isn't stupid - it is very sensible, and might even be necessary under the European Union Act of 2011.
The referendum would offer a choice between the agreed negotiated post brexit deal and, presumably, remaining in the EU.
So there would be an equivalent choice - people would be for what they are for, not what they are against.
So out of interest if there was a referendum offering that choice - i.e. Norway style EEA membership (meaning we leave the EU) vs remaining in the EU - how would you vote, or would you even vote given that it seems neither choice seems acceptable to you.
-
But some of the key points in the Leave campaign was on immigration, control and parliamentary sovereignty from EU laws and the points system to those coming here.
If you had been listening to what the Remainers said, you'd have known that this was the likely outcome of leaving the EU long before you placed your vote.
That is what the people voted for and that excludes anything that includes freedom of movement of people, which would rule out the EEA and other such associations.
You don't know that. All you know is that 52% of the people voted to leave the EU. If the ballot paper had said "leave the EU with no access to the single market" your side might have lost.
Anyway, there's no point you whining about it now. It's not as if you weren't told about the possibilities before the vote.
-
No it isn't stupid - it is very sensible, and might even be necessary under the European Union Act of 2011.
The referendum would offer a choice between the agreed negotiated post brexit deal and, presumably, remaining in the EU.
So there would be an equivalent choice - people would be for what they are for, not what they are against.
So out of interest if there was a referendum offering that choice - i.e. Norway style EEA membership (meaning we leave the EU) vs remaining in the EU - how would you vote, or would you even vote given that it seems neither choice seems acceptable to you.
That's a con. The people have voted to leave and Art 50 should be triggered.
-
That's a con. The people have voted to leave and Art 50 should be triggered.
And I'm sure article 50 will be triggered by the next PM. But the doesn't rule out doing a Norway style deal.
You seem very surprised that a Norway style deal is still on the table, even though people were discussing it for months before the referendum. It's almost as if you didn't understand what you were actually voting for.
-
If you had been listening to what the Remainers said, you'd have known that this was the likely outcome of leaving the EU long before you placed your vote.
You don't know that. All you know is that 52% of the people voted to leave the EU. If the ballot paper had said "leave the EU with no access to the single market" your side might have lost.
Anyway, there's no point you whining about it now. It's not as if you weren't told about the possibilities before the vote.
What are you whittling on about. Jeremy? You are talking as though I'm surprised by some outcome that I didn't foresee. You really have lost it.
-
And I'm sure article 50 will be triggered by the next PM. But the doesn't rule out doing a Norway style deal.
You seem very surprised that a Norway style deal is still on the table, even though people were discussing it for months before the referendum. It's almost as if you didn't understand what you were actually voting for.
The stupid Remainers may have been talking about it but the true Leavers weren't, they were talking about full exit.
-
Dear Jackie,
True leavers :( from the Church of Farage :P
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Jackie,
True leavers from the Church of Farage
Gonnagle.
That's right, the only ones who have the pure faith of freedom...
"Come out of her my people, so you will not share in her despotism, so you will not receive any of her bankruptcies; for her errors are piled up to the sky's and history will remember her desolations."
-
Dear Jackie,
True leavers :( from the Church of Farage :P
Gonnagle.
he's a cult
-
That's right, the only ones who have the pure faith of freedom...
"Come out of her my people, so you will not share in her despotism, so you will not receive any of her bankruptcies; for her errors are piled up to the sky's and history will remember her desolations."
You are bonkers.
-
You are bonkers.
Said the madman. ;D
-
Freedom to be poorer. Great achievement. Really terrific. Well done you.
Still as some millionaire said "It's a price worth paying" Friend of the people indeed. ::)
-
The stupid Remainers may have been talking about it but the true Leavers weren't, they were talking about full exit.
We will fully exit. What we do after that is up for grabs. Norway is fully not in the EU.
-
Freedom to be poorer. Great achievement. Really terrific. Well done you.
You are talking as if it is a fact, an actuality; only the insane do that.
-
We will fully exit. What we do after that is up for grabs. Norway is fully not in the EU.
Norway is still partially in the EU and subject to its madness, such as free movement.
Anyway there's an existential crisis going on in the EU caused by our referendum. The knives are coming out for 'Caesar'.
-
You are talking as if it is a fact, an actuality; only the insane do that.
Nope - only the insane believe in the Church of Saint Nigel.
-
Norway is still partially in the EU and subject to its madness, such as free movement.
Anyway there's an existential crisis going on in the EU caused by our referendum. The knives are coming out for 'Caesar'.
Some of the nationalist groups may be exercised, but I think the trend, as found by various polls, is that having seen what is happening in the UK - support for continued membership of the EU is rising in the continent.
-
Nope - only the insane believe in the Church of Saint Nigel.
This is just the bitterness of a loser. You lost, suck on it.
-
This is just the bitterness of a loser. You lost, suck on it.
The future of our country isn't some silly game JK in which you win or lose.
We need now to get out of the awful mess that the referendum has created in a manner that is in the best interests of the British people, which means minimising the damage caused.
-
Some of the nationalist groups may be exercised, but I think the trend, as found by various polls, is that having seen what is happening in the UK - support for continued membership of the EU is rising in the continent.
That is not the issue anymore. The fundamental dilemma for the EU now is what form should the EU take - a radical foundational overhaul is needed and being asked for.
So how can we be even partially associated with the present EU format when it is on the verge of morphing into god knows what?
-
That is not the issue anymore. The fundamental dilemma for the EU now is what form should the EU take - a radical foundational overhaul is needed and being asked for.
So how can we be even partially associated with the present EU format when it is on the verge of morphing into god knows what?
You clearly have lost the plot if you think some sort of understanding is not going to be reached with the EU - which I suspect will include elements of the 4 pillars. Anything else and we all lose badly. And I don't want our nations to lose anymore than they can possibly avoid.
-
The future of our country isn't some silly game JK in which you win or lose.
I know, which is why I'm not treating it like a game.
We need now to get out of the awful mess that the referendum has created in a manner that is in the best interests of the British people, which means minimising the damage caused.
But this is the laughable part - your assessment of the situation. Like some silly little child that has lost its crummy poxy toy and crying as if the world has ended. Grow up and move on to something bigger and better.
-
An amusing comment doing the rounds: everyone who has fucked up, has fucked off. Not quite everyone.
-
You clearly have lost the plot if you think some sort of understanding is not going to be reached with the EU - which I suspect will include elements of the 4 pillars. Anything else and we all lose badly. And I don't want our nations to lose anymore than they can possibly avoid.
The understanding that should be reached should be one where we trade with the EU as the rest of the globe do - not part in anyway with the EU's political project and the stupid Treaties.
-
An amusing comment doing the rounds: everyone who has fucked up, has fucked off. Not quite everyone.
Wigginhall, you may think you're god and that your judgement is absolute but I am sorry to have to break it to you but your perspective is just that, relative. And with this it has its confirmation bias. ;D
-
I know, which is why I'm not treating it like a game.
On the contrary, you statement:
'This is just the bitterness of a loser. You lost, suck on it.' indicates most ably that you consider it a game of 'winners' and 'losers'.
-
That is not the issue anymore. The fundamental dilemma for the EU now is what form should the EU take - a radical foundational overhaul is needed and being asked for.
So how can we be even partially associated with the present EU format when it is on the verge of morphing into god knows what?
It must and will reform and change. Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands and Germany need to drive this in opposition to the Junker/Holland direction. But I agree it's not clear how it will end up.
-
But this is the laughable part - your assessment of the situation. Like some silly little child that has lost its crummy poxy toy and crying as if the world has ended. Grow up and move on to something bigger and better.
Are you really trying to argue that everything is hunky-dory and rosy in the UK right now. We have no government with any authority, we have an opposition which has imploded, we are seeing the predicted negative economic effects of brexit materialising before our very eyes, we are seeing increases in xenophobic hate crime, there is a clear existential threat to the very existence of the UK, on the basis of a likely second referendum on Scottish independence. Plus there are other very direct effects that are hitting my professional world personally that I won't bore you with.
But like your leave 'leaders' Johnson, Gove and Farage you have created the mess and then are shuffling off the stage denying that you have any responsibility for the crisis created. It is you that needs to grow up and accept that as an instrument for the crisis you hold some level of responsibility for what happens. Currently it seems that those who will be left to pick up the pieces (assuming a May victory) will all be those that weren't responsible in the first place.
-
On the contrary, you statement:
'This is just the bitterness of a loser. You lost, suck on it.' indicates most ably that you consider it a game of 'winners' and 'losers'.
That was in reference to you not the new situation the UK finds itself in. In other words stop your whinging.
-
That was in reference to you not the new situation the UK finds itself in. In other words stop your whinging.
I thought it was me you were referring to. But hey, why would I expect you to follow an argument in any kind of logical manner. As PD has pointed out more ably than I can - it's a fucking mess and those most responsible have all fucked off.
Leavers in every sense of the word.
-
Wigginhall, you may think you're god and that your judgement is absolute but I am sorry to have to break it to you but your perspective is just that, relative. And with this it has its confirmation bias. ;D
No, I am a simple horny handed son of the soil, who saw Boris, Gove, Cameron and Farage as minor deities, but alas they have gone down into the underworld, there to consult with the ferryman Charon, and their bank balances. What japes.
-
That was in reference to you not the new situation the UK finds itself in. In other words stop your whinging.
Speaking the truth about what we have seen in the last couple of weeks isn't whinging, it is ... speaking the truth.
And just as Ian Hislop so ably said on Question Time - just because I wasn't on the winning side in an election doesn't mean I have to shut up, to stop making my arguments and points. By that view there should never be any opposition to a government that has won an election - they should just shit up cos they lost. Nope, that isn't how it works JK - it is all the more important now to be heard, to make the case more strongly than ever as we can now see the actual effects of the brexit vote - you know all those negative effects that we said would happen, but were told were 'project fear' - well they weren't JK - they were project reality, and they are happening.
And do you know what I will fight as hard as I can to protect this country from harm, to protect the future of my children and future generations, and if that means looking to legal means - so be it, if it means campaigning for a second referendum before any actual brexit agreement is ratified - so be it, if it means ensuring that if we do eventually brexit that the settlement is as close to preserving the key benefits that we have enjoyed as a member of the EU - so be it.
And if you don't like that, well tough.
-
Are you really trying to argue that everything is hunky-dory and rosy in the UK right now. We have no government with any authority, we have an opposition which has imploded, we are seeing the predicted negative economic effects of brexit materialising before our very eyes, we are seeing increases in xenophobic hate crime, there is a clear existential threat to the very existence of the UK, on the basis of a likely second referendum on Scottish independence. Plus there are other very direct effects that are hitting my professional world personally that I won't bore you with.
But like your leave 'leaders' Johnson, Gove and Farage you have created the mess and then are shuffling off the stage denying that you have any responsibility for the crisis created. It is you that needs to grow up and accept that as an instrument for the crisis you hold some level of responsibility for what happens. Currently it seems that those who will be left to pick up the pieces (assuming a May victory) will all be those that weren't responsible in the first place.
Change is always hard and unsettling but it is part of the growing pains from the old to the new.
So many straw men where shall I start..........arhh, the personal aspect. Now the truth is showing its head. So really this is all about you going, "Me, me, me!!!!!"
Actual the one responsible for all this is Cameron, a Remainer, who has buggered off. It was his job to provide contingency plans for a Brexit and to have the referendum organised in a proper way, not his usual cack handed Bullington bollocks approach to government.
-
That was in reference to you not the new situation the UK finds itself in. In other words stop your whinging.
No, The Farage doctrine remains. As he said ''a 52-48 split is unfinished business leading to a second referendum''.
-
I thought it was me you were referring to. But hey, why would I expect you to follow an argument in any kind of logical manner. As PD has pointed out more ably than I can - it's a fucking mess and those most responsible have all fucked off.
Leavers in every sense of the word.
It was aimed at all you whinging Remainers!!!
-
Change is always hard and unsettling but it is part of the growing pains from the old to the new.
So many straw men where shall I start..........arhh, the personal aspect. Now the truth is showing its head. So really this is all about you going, "Me, me, me!!!!!"
Actual the one responsible for all this is Cameron, a Remainer, who has buggered off. It was his job to provide contingency plans for a Brexit and to have the referendum organised in a proper way, not his usual cack handed Bullington bollocks approach to government.
No he's actually going on about Us,Us,Us the 48 percent plus those who have come to realise it is a shit idea.
However if Mrs Leadsom does succeed Brexiters who wanted to give the establishment a bloody nose will be blessed with the....er....... establishment.
If one wanted Brexit and realised the economic mayhem then I would say that is just axegrinding and wanting equality of suffering on your part.
-
It was aimed at all you whinging Remainers!!!
And I suppose you are not a desperate Brexitter quaking because your weird view of international relations most probably will be frustrated.
-
So many straw men where shall I start..........arhh, the personal aspect. Now the truth is showing its head. So really this is all about you going, "Me, me, me!!!!!"
Nope it isn't all about 'me, me, me' at all - I suspect that I will be personally OK whatever happens. I am concerned about others and in particular the young and future generations.
And quite frankly the notion that remainers are all only in it for themselves, while brexiters are somehow as purely altruistic as the driven snow is frankly non-sense. Wasn't one of the key themes from leavers that 'all these foreigners are coming over taking our jobs' - well that is just as 'me, me, me'.
And seeing as you brought it up the 'personal aspect' that I wasn't going to bore you with (but will now) isn't personal in a direct manner, but professional. In the past few weeks I am aware of growing numbers of colleagues, who are top scientists who are already being excluded from joining consortiums that are working toward submitting bids for competitive research funding in the next year or so, even though they are currently still eligible. Other partners in other EU countries are becoming (not unreasonably) concerned that including a UK partner will jeopardise the likelihood of funding given the uncertainty over the future status of the UK in EU research funding terms.
And I have been officially asked to document these examples in order to provide a dossier that will be submitted to BIS and will land on the desk of the brother of the brexiter in chief (before he scarpered) - love to know how icy the relationships are in the Johnson family at the moment.
So by 'personally' I meant the negative effects on UK science and scientists.
-
Speaking the truth about what we have seen in the last couple of weeks isn't whinging, it is ... speaking the truth.
And just as Ian Hislop so ably said on Question Time - just because I wasn't on the winning side in an election doesn't mean I have to shut up, to stop making my arguments and points. By that view there should never be any opposition to a government that has won an election - they should just shit up cos they lost. Nope, that isn't how it works JK - it is all the more important now to be heard, to make the case more strongly than ever as we can now see the actual effects of the brexit vote - you know all those negative effects that we said would happen, but were told were 'project fear' - well they weren't JK - they were project reality, and they are happening.
And do you know what I will fight as hard as I can to protect this country from harm, to protect the future of my children and future generations, and if that means looking to legal means - so be it, if it means campaigning for a second referendum before any actual brexit agreement is ratified - so be it, if it means ensuring that if we do eventually brexit that the settlement is as close to preserving the key benefits that we have enjoyed as a member of the EU - so be it.
And if you don't like that, well tough.
But when a GE result comes through the losers don't start crying and saying I don't like that result lets just ignore it and do what I want do they. They accept it and work within the bounds of that election, and so should the Remainers. They should respect the result and let it stand and be worked though.
-
It was aimed at all you whinging Remainers!!!
Actually the most jaw-dropping whinging I've heard was from one N. Farage, in the European parliament with his pathetic 'I've got the biggest chip on my shoulder' whinge at all his colleagues - you know the one where he claimed they'd never had a proper job in their lives, yet was surrounded by people who had set up and run businesses, been surgeons, were in the military, were lawyers etc. And he won, apparently.
And there he is refusing to resign from the EU parliament - does the man have no shame. And, of course, because he is paid in euro (unlike most of us) he has just received a nice little 12% pay rise due to the brexit-induced crash of the pound.
So it really is all about me, me, me as far as Farage is concerned.
-
No, The Farage doctrine remains. As he said ''a 52-48 split is unfinished business leading to a second referendum''.
Oh, Vlad, get a brain. As I have already said you lot can have your referendum in 10 years time, OK? This is what Farage meant.
-
But when a GE result comes through the losers don't start crying and saying I don't like that result lets just ignore it and do what I want do they. They accept it and work within the bounds of that election, and so should the Remainers. They should respect the result and let it stand and be worked though.
You are forgetting the Farage doctrine which says 52 to 48 is unfinished business.
The referendum result is already history and probably out of date.
There is a case to carry it through and have the opprobrium of it's affects as a matter of regret for those who voted Brexit and the righteous vilification of the position of those who still hold it.(You will have to own this Jack)
It is now up to Government to minimise it's negative effects and of course if Article 50 is ever enacted there should at least be ratification by parliament of the goals and maybe a second referendum.
-
Oh, Vlad, get a brain. As I have already said you lot can have your referendum in 10 years time, OK? This is what Farage meant.
Whether you have one is the question Jack.
10 years is how soon article 50 will be enacted.
-
But when a GE result comes through the losers don't start crying and saying I don't like that result lets just ignore it and do what I want do they. They accept it and work within the bounds of that election, and so should the Remainers. They should respect the result and let it stand and be worked though.
No if you lose a general election the very next day you start to make the arguments to win the next one, which will at the very most be only 5 years away.
So you have an opportunity to reverse the decision a few years down the line. So using your general election analogy, therefore, I assume you are comfortable that there should be a second referendum within 5 year that should be able to reverse any brexit decision. Ok with you?
-
No he's actually going on about Us,Us,Us the 48 percent plus those who have come to realise it is a shit idea.
However if Mrs Leadsom does succeed Brexiters who wanted to give the establishment a bloody nose will be blessed with the....er....... establishment.
No he was referring to his personal situation.
Short sighted again, Vlad. You can vote them out at the next GE, unlike the Commission and many other EU institutions.
-
They should respect the result and let it stand and be worked though.
But JK, you have made it very clear that you wouldn't accept a Norway style EEA post brexit settlement (which would be entirely consistent with the vote to leave). So you seem a little lacking in consistency.
Why would it be OK for you not to accept the decision if that results in Norway style EEA (cos you don't like it) but not for us.
-
The general election analogy is very odd, since straight after an election, opposition parties try to make life as difficult as possible for the government, and in fact, try to bring them down. If this didn't exist, you would have a one party state. I don't know if anybody is actually saying officially that Brexit can be reversed in 5 years, it sounds unlikely to me, so it is much more irrevocable than an election, and the Brexit people seem to saying that people should not object and should not oppose it!
-
You can vote them out at the next GE, unlike the Commission and many other EU institutions.
Category error.
The EU commission is the equivalent of our civil service - can you vote them out at a general election - nope.
The European parliament and council of ministers are the two bodies that actually make decisions and both have an electoral mandate - the former directly elected, the second being from the directly elected government.
The equivalent decision making bodied in the UK are the House of Commons and the House of Lords, which also, of course both have an electoral mandate ... ooops, hmm, nope that's not right is is. If your confer is democracy put your own house in order first JK.
-
... and the Brexit people seem to saying that people should not object and should not oppose it!
But it is actually worse than that.
Don't forget that JK won't accept a Norway style EEA settlement post brexit, so it would appear that remainers have to accept whatever outcome ensues post brexit, but the brexiters are allowed not to accept a post brexit settlement that wasn't their preferred flavour.
-
No if you lose a general election the very next day you start to make the arguments to win the next one, which will at the very most be only 5 years away.
So you have an opportunity to reverse the decision a few years down the line. So using your general election analogy, therefore, I assume you are comfortable that there should be a second referendum within 5 year that should be able to reverse any brexit decision. Ok with you?
If you lot want to plead for one in 5 years time be my quest.
-
If you lot want to plead for one in 5 years time be my quest.
They won't have enacted the first one Jack Ha Ha Ha.
-
But JK, you have made it very clear that you wouldn't accept a Norway style EEA post brexit settlement (which would be entirely consistent with the vote to leave). So you seem a little lacking in consistency.
Why would it be OK for you not to accept the decision if that results in Norway style EEA (cos you don't like it) but not for us.
Because the EEA option was never aired by the Leave lot as a major aspect of the campaign. You mention EEA to most leave voters at the time and they would have responded, "The EE what?" Mention the immigration issues and they would all know about that even if they had other reasons for voting leave. So to suggest the EEA option now is not valid and disingenuous, as it was never a major aspect of the campaign to the masses.
-
Because the EEA option was never aired by the Leave lot as a major aspect of the campaign. You mention EEA to most leave voters at the time and they would have responded, "The EE what?" Mention the immigration issues and they would all know about that even if they had other reasons for voting leave. So to suggest the EEA option now is not valid and disingenuous, as it was never a major aspect of the campaign to the masses.
Ah so there isn't a mandate for any specific flavour of brexit then JK, because none were on the ballot paper.
I agree and that is why once there is a negotiated and agreed deal, be it EEA or Leadsom-style WTO without access to the free market, that specific deal needs to receive a mandated from the electorate in a second referendum. If it does we leave - if at that time people actually prefer remaining in the EU than the actual deal on offer for brexit, then we should remain.
Why is that a problem to you.
-
It is a fascinating difference, that after an election, we expect the losers to immediately start opposing the government, in every way they can. In fact, this is a cornerstone of democracy. But in relation to Brexit, some Brexiteers are saying, don't whinge, just get on with life, as if here, democracy is frozen now, you are not supposed to object or organize against it. Which is more democratic?
-
Category error.
The EU commission is the equivalent of our civil service - can you vote them out at a general election - nope.
The European parliament and council of ministers are the two bodies that actually make decisions and both have an electoral mandate - the former directly elected, the second being from the directly elected government.
The equivalent decision making bodied in the UK are the House of Commons and the House of Lords, which also, of course both have an electoral mandate ... ooops, hmm, nope that's not right is is. If your confer is democracy put your own house in order first JK.
Oh, Davey, we've been through all this before and you're talking bollocks. Do your homework like a good scientist.
-
If you lot want to plead for one in 5 years time be my quest.
No need to plead. We simply need a mandate for a real post brexit settlement - so that people are voting for something, not just against something.
Given your views here, I suspect that were there to be a referendum on EEA vs EU you'd spoil your ballot paper.
Likewise the 60%+ of brexit voters for whom immigration wasn't their biggest factor (according the the Ashcroft exit survey of 12,000 voters) might prefer to vote to remain if that is stacked up against a brexit deal which casts us out of the single market.
-
They won't have enacted the first one Jack Ha Ha Ha.
Have you read article 50?
-
Oh, Davey, we've been through all this before and you're talking bollocks. Do your homework like a good scientist.
Don't like the truth do you.
Decisions in the EU are taken by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. Decisions in the UK are taken by the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
So can you name me one piece of EU legislation that has been passed by the commission, rather than the council and parliament.
-
Don't like the truth do you.
Decisions in the EU are taken by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. Decisions in the UK are taken by the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
So can you name me one piece of EU legislation that has been passed by the commission, rather than the council and parliament.
The commission are the executives and they get there guidance from the treaties. There is only one policy and that is what is set out in the treaties. The treaties are the EU's bible. Very much like the Soviet Union.
-
The commission are the executives and they get there guidance from the treaties. There is only one policy and that is what is set out in the treaties. The treaties are the EU's bible. Very much like the Soviet Union.
Come on JK I asked a direct question. Tell me a piece of EU legislation that has been passed by the commission, rather than the council and parliament.
-
Come on JK I asked a direct question. Tell me a piece of EU legislation that has been passed by the commission, rather than the council and parliament.
They set the agenda. They are the ones with the power.
If you are told to shovel pig shit even though you are the one who does it is your boss who has the power and sets the agenda and task, not you. You are just the lackey!!!
-
There is only one policy and that is what is set out in the treaties.
And the treaties were passed by the commission right? Wrong they were ratified by the european parliament and by the individual governments/parliaments of the member states through the auspices of the council of ministers.
-
Have you read article 50?
I was thinking of leaving it for three or four years...............Like the Prime Minister.
-
And the treaties were passed by the commission right? Wrong they were ratified by the european parliament and by the individual governments/parliaments of the member states.
It is who writes and shapes them that counts not the zombies who rubber stamp it. You are thick!!!
Who are the controlling factors in your scientific world. The scientist who works in the lab or the funding agencies that dictate to you what they want researched?
-
It is who writes and shapes them that counts not the zombies who rubber stamp it. You are thick!!!
Who do you think drafts legislation in the UK - multiple choice question:
A. A government minister
B. All the MPs getting together in a room
C. The civil service
Answer C
-
Who are the controlling factors in your scientific world. The scientist who works in the lab or the funding agencies that dictate to you what they want researched?
Oh really, really bad example for you.
The answer is the scientists in the lab because the whole notion of allocation of research funds is on the basis of peer assessment. So grant applications are reviewed by peers - i.e. other 'scientist who work in the lab' and then the final decisions on funding are taken by panels that are also made up of peers - i.e. other 'scientist who work in the lab'.
And the earlier decisions on funding priorities are also driven by peer consultation and assessment, - i.e. other 'scientist who work in the lab'.
-
Who do you think drafts legislation in the UK - multiple choice question:
A. A government minister
B. All the MPs getting together in a room
C. The civil service
Answer C
The government shapes the vision. They set the parameters and the direction.
-
Oh really, really bad example for you.
The answer is the scientists in the lab because the whole notion of allocation of research funds is on the basis of peer assessment. So grant applications are reviewed by peers - i.e. other 'scientist who work in the lab' and then the final decisions on funding are taken by panels that are also made up of peers - i.e. other 'scientist who work in the lab'.
And the earlier decisions on funding priorities are also driven by peer consultation and assessment, - i.e. other 'scientist who work in the lab'.
Everything there is 'in the lab' but that's bollocks. You are a real scientist aren't you? Government bodies etc. do it; EU, UN etc. etc. What you say might be for small projects where once the funding has been obtained some of it is funnelled into related areas.
-
The government shapes the vision. They set the parameters and the direction.
As they do in the EU - the direction and powers of the EU are vested in the individual member states - you do understand that the members of the EU commission are proposed by the elected governments of each state. So in a manner they are no less or more 'elected' that are the ministers in a UK government that are appointed by the PM. They certainly have a greater link to the electorate than the top civil servants who have no link to the electorate at all (I'm not making a point about whether that is good or bad, merely stating facts).
-
Everything there is 'in the lab' but that's bollocks. You are a real scientist aren't you? Government bodies etc. do it; EU, UN etc. etc. What you say might be for small projects where once the funding has been obtained some of it is funnelled into related areas.
Nonsense - go look up the Haldane principle and come back when you have a clue what you are talking about.
Jus this week I was at a meeting where I, and other fellow researchers, were shaping the priorities for a new funding stream worth about Ł1.5 billion over the next 5 years. The agenda is set by scientists and organisations that are at arms length from government.
-
As they do in the EU - the direction and powers of the EU are vested in the individual member states - you do understand that the members of the EU commission are proposed by the elected governments of each state. So in a manner they are no less or more 'elected' that are the ministers in a UK government that are appointed by the PM. They certainly have a greater link to the electorate than the top civil servants who have no link to the electorate at all (I'm not making a point about whether that is good or bad, merely stating facts).
And who pays their salaries? You can't have two masters.
We have no British representatives in the EU, and in fact our top politicians are not even 'British'. They are all working for the EU's Ever-Closer-Union project.
-
We have no British representatives in the EU, and in fact our top politicians are not even 'British'. They are all working for the EU's Ever-Closer-Union project.
What planet are you on.
There are 73 British MEPs (including your beloved Farage).
And there is a commissioner from each country including the UK. So currently that is Lord Hill (yup I'd agree that he isn't particularly well know, but that's Cameron's fault as he appointed him. Previous ones are:
Catherine Ashton
Peter Mandelson
Chris Patten
Neil Kinnock
Leon Britton
Now you may or may not agree with their politics but you can hardly accuse most of those people as being unknown faceless bureaucrats, can you.
-
Who do you think drafts legislation in the UK - multiple choice question:
A. A government minister
B. All the MPs getting together in a room
C. The civil service
Answer C
There is a significant difference in that in the normal EU legislative process only the Commission can propose new legislature. In our process either house can propose a new bill, eventually to be approved by both. In the EU the Commission proposes and drafts legislature which can then be amended and/or rejected or approved by the Council or EP.
Of-course it is possible for the Council, Parliament or European Council or ordinary citizens (and businesses) to ask the Commission to draft legislation but this usually involves negotiating with, or otherwise persuading the Commission to do so.
imo. this is one of issues that needs reform.
-
There is a significant difference in that in the normal EU legislative process only the Commission can propose new legislature. In our process either house can propose a new bill, eventually to be approved by both. In the EU the Commission proposes and drafts legislature which can then be amended and/or rejected or approved by the Council or EP.
Of-course it is possible for the Council, Parliament or European Council or ordinary citizens (and businesses) to ask the Commission to draft legislation but this usually involves negotiating with, or otherwise persuading the Commission to do so.
imo. this is one of issues that needs reform.
But ultimately the commission are responsible to the individual member states, who lets not forget, appoint the commission in the first place. So although it may be technically correct that the commission proposes new legislations they do so on the basis of the agenda of the individual member states via the council.
There is, of course, no point in the commission proposing something that isn't going to be acceptable to the council of ministers nor the parliament as it won't be approved.
-
Yes, that's certainly true.
The EU is ultimately democratically responsible to us, but there is a level of indirectness that leads to an inflexibility and lack of responsiveness that is the cause of much of the discontent with it.
-
Dear Jackie boy,
Actual the one responsible for all this is Cameron, a Remainer, who has buggered off. It was his job to provide contingency plans for a Brexit and to have the referendum organised in a proper way, not his usual cack handed Bullington bollocks approach to government.
Something else we agree on, but that is history and Cameron is also history, what is the country doing just now, watching, watching as the Tories discuss who will be the next Prime Minister, the party who couldn't give a flying F*** about this country, it seems the country wants more of the same, some people are asking should Blair be tried for war crimes, I think the whole Tory party should be tried for crimes against the United Kingdom.
Gonnagle.
-
..... some people are asking should Blair be tried for war crimes, I think the whole Tory party should be tried for crimes against the United Kingdom.
Gonnagle.
As should most of the world governments for crimes against 'the people'.
-
I agree with that SP but it won't happen. If it did happen a few times, maybe people in government would not be so quick (if not eager) to go to war.
Question Time was very interesting last night, this subject was quite a lot of insight. A politician who was a serving soldier was on the panel and what he said about Iraq hit home. However, hindsight is all very well and politicians are no different to anyone else except for having greater power and responsibility; they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Jack, you said: "... our top politicians are not even 'British'. "
Who? Cameron? May (who was a Brexiter)? Our London Mayor is 'British' as he was born here.
-
What planet are you on.
There are 73 British MEPs (including your beloved Farage).
And there is a commissioner from each country including the UK. So currently that is Lord Hill (yup I'd agree that he isn't particularly well know, but that's Cameron's fault as he appointed him. Previous ones are:
Catherine Ashton
Peter Mandelson
Chris Patten
Neil Kinnock
Leon Britton
Now you may or may not agree with their politics but you can hardly accuse most of those people as being unknown faceless bureaucrats, can you.
Read my post again and use that little scientific brain of yours to work out that your reply responded to or addressed nothing I said.
-
Dear Jackie boy,
Something else we agree on, but that is history and Cameron is also history, what is the country doing just now, watching, watching as the Tories discuss who will be the next Prime Minister, the party who couldn't give a flying F*** about this country, it seems the country wants more of the same, some people are asking should Blair be tried for war crimes, I think the whole Tory party should be tried for crimes against the United Kingdom.
Gonnagle.
And what would the evidence be that would be put forward to support this charge, Gonners? I would tend to suggest that Blair would be more likely to be found guilty of what he is accused of than Cameron and his 'cronies' of theirs.
-
Read my post again and use that little scientific brain of yours to work out that your reply responded to or addressed nothing I said.
I've read both your original post and PD's response to it, Jack. I would, as an English teacher, say that what PD wrote both responded to and addressed everything you said.
I'm beginning to wonder whether your real name is Andrea L. ... ;)
-
Yes, that's certainly true.
The EU is ultimately democratically responsible to us, but there is a level of indirectness that leads to an inflexibility and lack of responsiveness that is the cause of much of the discontent with it.
And the cause of all this is the authoritarian agenda set out right from the start in the Treaty of Rome and the ideas of those times. So in fact there is no real choice for the member governments etc. because their hands are tied. This is why Gisela Stuart is anti-EU as she was asked by Blair to take part in the talks for the Constitution and she found them totally unyielding and fiercely dogmatic in their attitudes. So what we have is a 1957 doctrine that drives on like some aimless madman that is utterly unaware or responsive to the changing times and circumstances of the day. Until now, though, when they are starting to wake up from their trance, nearly 60 years down the line when it is far too late for them to adapt and change course in time The shit hit the fan decades ago and they are only now sensing that there is some essence of an odd and odious aroma that is niggling them.
-
I agree with that SP but it won't happen. If it did happen a few times, maybe people in government would not be so quick (if not eager) to go to war.
Question Time was very interesting last night, this subject was quite a lot of insight. A politician who was a serving soldier was on the panel and what he said about Iraq hit home. However, hindsight is all very well and politicians are no different to anyone else except for having greater power and responsibility; they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Jack, you said: "... our top politicians are not even 'British'. "
Who? Cameron? May (who was a Brexiter)? Our London Mayor is 'British' as he was born here.
Actually I meant for the most part the ministers and bureaucrats etc. in the EU, particularly in the commission etc. who work behind the scenes. This being so because they are paid by Brussels and you can't have two masters.
-
I've read both your original post and PD's response to it, Jack. I would, as an English teacher, say that what PD wrote both responded to and addressed everything you said.
I'm beginning to wonder whether your real name is Andrea L. ... ;)
I'm not a Christian. But my surname might be Heavisomwat.
You might have noticed he left out some of my post, the most poignant part which gave it its saliency and meaning.
-
And the cause of all this is the authoritarian agenda set out right from the start in the Treaty of Rome and the ideas of those times. So in fact there is no real choice for the member governments etc. because their hands are tied. This is why Gisela Stuart is anti-EU as she was asked by Blair to take part in the talks for the Constitution and she found them totally unyielding and fiercely dogmatic in their attitudes. So what we have is a 1957 doctrine that drives on like some aimless madman that is utterly unaware or responsive to the changing times and circumstances of the day. Until now, though, when they are starting to wake up from their trance, nearly 60 years down the line when it is far too late for them to adapt and change course in time The shit hit the fan decades ago and they are only now sensing that there is some essence of an odd and odious aroma that is niggling them.
Some truth in that, the problems are complex but have been well understood within the Commission in the past. Too many of the people able to affect change do too well from the status quo.
-
If they didn't, they'd be in dire straits 8).
-
Don't know whether there are any Labour Party members here, but if there are (or there are folk with the knowledge) - according to Labour Party rules, does Corbyn, as sitting leader, get an automatic entry into any contest, or does he still require the standard 50 MP names supporting his application to be included on the ballot paper? There appears to be a disagreement even within the party over this.
On a related, but different matter, if the party was to end up splitting - as even Kevin McGuire said could happen when interviewed on this morning's BBC Breakfast - into say centre left and hard left, how many of the current crop of MPs would be in each camp (and, yes, I am aware that that dividing line could be somewhat porous).
-
Don't know whether there are any Labour Party members here, but if there are (or there are folk with the knowledge) - according to Labour Party rules, does Corbyn, as sitting leader, get an automatic entry into any contest, or does he still require the standard 50 MP names supporting his application to be included on the ballot paper? There appears to be a disagreement even within the party over this.
That's right - it is unclear in the wording whether a sitting leader gets on the ballot paper automatically. This will probably need to be settled by the NEC (which I think has a pro-Corbyn bias) or even the courts.
-
That's right - it is unclear in the wording whether a sitting leader gets on the ballot paper automatically. This will probably need to be settled by the NEC (which I think has a pro-Corbyn bias) or even the courts.
Thanks for that, PD. I wasn't sure whether the wording was unclear or just that the two sides where trying to make them mean one or the other.
-
You might have noticed he left out some of my post, the most poignant part which gave it its saliency and meaning.
One can leave out part of a post when quoting yet still respond to it in one's response. From reading your original post and PD's response, he did just that. After all, the quoting of a post is really only to indicate which post one is responding to; only if it has a number of disparate points which one wants to address specifically, is it necessary to quote in full (or sectionally).
-
And who pays their salaries? You can't have two masters.
Given that you seem to be incensed that I hadn't replied to that part of your post, I shall.
Who pays the salaries of the British representatives in the European parliament and on the commission? Well the UK tax payer does, in exactly the same way as they do for Westminster representatives. Where do you think the money comes from to pay them, JK. Do you think it is magically conjured out of thin air. Nope the costs of the EU are paid for by tax raised at member state level.
Unless I am grossly mistaken the EU isn't a tax raising body.
-
Dear World,
Labour imploding! I listened to a man this morning on the Andrew Marr programme and he is definitely not the one doing any kind of imploding.
I listened to a man totally relaxed and at ease answering Marr's rapid questions, sometimes looking bemused that Marr was repeating the same question he had just answered.
One telling question that gave me hope was when Marr asked him about all the stress he was under, his reply was, what stress! he then went on to tell Marr what real stress is, poverty, eviction from your home and putting food on the table to feed your kids, for me, this is a man totally in touch with reality, totally wedded to the fact that this country needs investment and not more austerity.
I would definitely vote for this man, a man who actually wants debate, a man who knows the true value of communication, the rest of the Labour party might be imploding but he is definitely not, his detractors should shut up, get behind this man, he is a breathe of fresh air in all this political back stabbing nonsense.
Gonnagle.
-
Yes Gonnagle. He came across very well in the interview. However, he has had plenty of opportunities to get the other MPs to support him, and to actually lead - but has been unsuccessful.
Where is he going wrong? Negotiation? Compromise? Delegation? Just not taking advice about tactics?
-
Dear World,
Labour imploding! I listened to a man this morning on the Andrew Marr programme and he is definitely not the one doing any kind of imploding.
I listened to a man totally relaxed and at ease answering Marr's rapid questions, sometimes looking bemused that Marr was repeating the same question he had just answered.
One telling question that gave me hope was when Marr asked him about all the stress he was under, his reply was, what stress! he then went on to tell Marr what real stress is, poverty, eviction from your home and putting food on the table to feed your kids, for me, this is a man totally in touch with reality, totally wedded to the fact that this country needs investment and not more austerity.
I would definitely vote for this man, a man who actually wants debate, a man who knows the true value of communication, the rest of the Labour party might be imploding but he is definitely not, his detractors should shut up, get behind this man, he is a breathe of fresh air in all this political back stabbing nonsense.
Gonnagle.
Yes He looked like a leader.
What the PLP did a couple of weeks ago was unmitigatingly stupid.
Angela Eagle doesn't inspire confidence.
However, the most successful tack for any potential PM is ''safest pair of hands'' or to actually have a plan.
-
Yes Gonnagle. He came across very well in the interview. However, he has had plenty of opportunities to get the other MPs to support him, and to actually lead - but has been unsuccessful.
Where is he going wrong? Negotiation? Compromise? Delegation? Just not taking advice about tactics?
He's a nice guy but utterly inept at being a leader according to other MPs, he is a leader who can't lead. I admire his conviction though, if he wins expect momentum to take out the MPs and win the labour party for the hard left.
If Davey is anything to go by the centrists foot soldiers have already given up.
-
Yes He looked like a leader.
What the PLP did a couple of weeks ago was unmitigatingly stupid.
Angela Eagle doesn't inspire confidence.
He comes across to me as a romantic idealist, I have voted for all political parties and a floater. If labour are to win they have to convince the floaters, I would never vote labour if he is leader, the PLP know I'm not alone.
They would be better off going for UDI rather than suffering an embarrassing defeat.
-
He's a nice guy but utterly inept at being a leader according to other MPs, he is a leader who can't lead. I admire his conviction though, if he wins expect momentum to take out the MPs and win the labour party for the hard left.
If Davey is anything to go by the centrists foot soldiers have already given up.
I don't think you can use me to generalise. Although I have left, I am not what one would call a tribal, from the cradle Labour supporter, I only joined in the mid 90s.
There are plenty of my friends who are equally despairing about Corbyn who remain members and actually still are the driving force of my local party. Indeed one of their major gripes is that although they have a bunch of new members who have joined due to Corbyn, they don't actually do anything. The canvassing, the leafleting, the standing in local elections, the putting up stakes, the knocking up for GOTV is still don't by the same people who are largely moderates.
Now not all constituency parties will be like that, but I suspect that much of the actual activity in the party is still being done by people who were enthused by and campaigned for Blair.
So it is a bit more complicated, you need to consider not just members, but activists (a sub-set of members) and also potential voters who are a massively greater pool than the membership.
-
Dear Udayana,
Negotiation? Compromise? Delegation?
Compromise, when the man won the leadership of his party, his cabinet was full of his detractors, he did not staff it with yes men, the only compromise I see from his detractors is that he goes.
Delegation, once again the people he put in place were not 100% behind him, but I think he gave the jobs to people who he thought could do the job, no matter what they thought about him personally.
Negotiation, this is his strong point, he see's a real need for communication, he is the one willing to listen, he is not the one who has caused this rift, especially at a time when the Labour party has to show solidarity.
And I have just listened to Andrew Neil interviewing Angela Eagle, oh dear! what a woefully depressing woman, add to that, she voted for and backed Blair in is pals act with America.
Jeremy Corbyn is the man to lead the Labour party, whether he is the man to be our next Prime Minister, only time will tell, but we need different, he is certainly different, a quiet man with a passion, not a sound bite man, not a chinless wonder like our retreating/ resigning hall of mirrors Prime Minister we have now.
Gonnagle.
-
He comes across to me as a romantic idealist, I have voted for all political parties and a floater. If labour are to win they have to convince the floaters, I would never vote labour if he is leader, the PLP know I'm not alone.
They would be better off going for UDI rather than suffering an embarrassing defeat.
He has the worse deal. He is leader of the opposition at a point in the political cycle when the opposition is naturally at the lowest ebb. He is a remainer. Much of the traditional vote prefer self immolation, The PLP in panic did something unmitigatedly stupid and destroyed the party....They did not even have an alternative. That is what crashed the party and even now the best they can put up is Angela Eagle. Corbyn in my view has done the decent thing and stood first on behalf of an increasing support.
May is not going to run a general election. Leadsom certainly won't.
Corbyn was right to hang on attract vast numbers to the party and handover to a better fit candidate in time for 2020.
He was also right not to go because certain elements in the BBC including the suspected manipulator of politics Kuensberg thought it might just round off news coverage on a certain day.
Such a circumcision of the BBC's political influence is of course very socio politically significant.
-
He has the worse deal. He is leader of the opposition at a point in the political cycle when the opposition is naturally at the lowest ebb. He is a remainer. Much of the traditional vote prefer self immolation, The PLP in panic did something unmitigatedly stupid and destroyed the party....They did not even have an alternative. That is what crashed the party and even now the best they can put up is Angela Eagle. Corbyn in my view has done the decent thing and stood first on behalf of an increasing support.
May is not going to run a general election. Leadsom certainly won't.
Corbyn was right to hang on attract vast numbers to the party and handover to a better fit candidate in time for 2020.
He was also right not to go because certain elements in the BBC including the suspected manipulator of politics Kuensberg thought it might just round off news coverage on a certain day.
Such a circumcision of the BBC's political influence is of course very socio politically significant.
Corbyn by not resigning is as much to blame for the crisis as the PLP, both sides think they are doing the right thing.
-
I don't think you can use me to generalise. Although I have left, I am not what one would call a tribal, from the cradle Labour supporter, I only joined in the mid 90s.
There are plenty of my friends who are equally despairing about Corbyn who remain members and actually still are the driving force of my local party. Indeed one of their major gripes is that although they have a bunch of new members who have joined due to Corbyn, they don't actually do anything. The canvassing, the leafleting, the standing in local elections, the putting up stakes, the knocking up for GOTV is still don't by the same people who are largely moderates.
Now not all constituency parties will be like that, but I suspect that much of the actual activity in the party is still being done by people who were enthused by and campaigned for Blair.
So it is a bit more complicated, you need to consider not just members, but activists (a sub-set of members) and also potential voters who are a massively greater pool than the membership.
Won't the voters just cease to be voters?
-
Corbyn by not resigning is as much to blame for the crisis as the PLP, both sides think they are doing the right thing.
No since Jeremy Corbyn's leadership was status quo and they didn't have a leader in mind.
Corbyn's resignation would have been media timed. He has taught them that their agenda and timetable is not automatically what watches are set by.
That is a nasty blow to the media.
Any repurcussions on that?........Yes, Mrs May did not face the opprobrium of a press which had been pro brexit neither did Leadsom automatically get support from the press and Keunsberg and Pienaar have not had such a high profile.
-
The things that worry me about Jeremy Corbin are;
Until now he has never held any post at all, so lacks experience and a track record to judge him by.
Over the last few months he has had lots of meetings with sycophantic supporters but none at all with other groups whose support he will need; Business leaders, Education heads, NHS executives, Foreign leaders, etc. How can he hope to come up with policies that will work if he is unwilling or unable to consult and carry with him these other important aspects of what makes the country tick?
Has he ever actually (let alone recently) had a job. I mean one which involves working with other people and actually getting something done, even if it is just making money on the stock exchange.
It appears to me the man appears to lack any of the tools/connection necessary to be successful in high office.
It is all very well to have lofty and laudable visions but you have to demonstrate an ability to make them work. He clearly cannot because he can't even carry his fellow Labour polititians along his dream path.
-
He has the worse deal. He is leader of the opposition at a point in the political cycle when the opposition is naturally at the lowest ebb. He is a remainer. Much of the traditional vote prefer self immolation, The PLP in panic did something unmitigatedly stupid and destroyed the party....They did not even have an alternative. That is what crashed the party and even now the best they can put up is Angela Eagle. Corbyn in my view has done the decent thing and stood first on behalf of an increasing support.
May is not going to run a general election. Leadsom certainly won't.
Corbyn was right to hang on attract vast numbers to the party and handover to a better fit candidate in time for 2020.
He was also right not to go because certain elements in the BBC including the suspected manipulator of politics Kuensberg thought it might just round off news coverage on a certain day.
Such a circumcision of the BBC's political influence is of course very socio politically significant.
I think you are right about the electoral cycle; the losing party is often labelled unelectable for two or three terms, because they are, and they tend to have a nervous breakdown, see the Tories under IDS. I suppose Eagle is a kind of stalking horse, the real would-be leaders are presumably lying low, sniffing the breeze.
-
He is a remainer.
If you believe that, you are seriuosly deluded. Although he agreed to toe the Labour Party line, he has always been a Eurosceptic - at best.
He was also right not to go because certain elements in the BBC including the suspected manipulator of politics Kuensberg thought it might just round off news coverage on a certain day.
Evidence, please.
Such a circumcision of the BBC's political influence is of course very socio politically significant.
It would be, if the BBC had as much influence as several other media outlets, Vlad.
-
If you believe that, you are seriuosly deluded. Although he agreed to toe the Labour Party line, he has always been a Eurosceptic - at best.
Evidence, please.
It would be, if the BBC had as much influence as several other media outlets, Vlad.
1: He supported remain and tells us he voted remain
2: Corbyn cannot be trusted to tell the truth but Keunsberg can be trusted not to try and influence events and show impartiality......Who is seriously deluded Hope?
3: Eventually Brexit coverage and Corbyn coverage will not come out as the Corporations finest hour.
-
1: He supported remain and tells us he voted remain
He may have stated that he was going to vote to Remain, but it is clear that he has been antagonistic to the EU for many years, and whenever he spoke on behalf the Remain campaign he had to check his notes when encouraging people which side to vote for. If he was fully in favour of remaining, he wouldn't have needed to do that.
2: Corbyn cannot be trusted to tell the truth but Keunsberg can be trusted not to try and influence events and show impartiality......Who is seriously deluded Hope?
Keunsberg doesn't have the influence that some would like to believe.
3: Eventually Brexit coverage and Corbyn coverage will not come out as the Corporations finest hour.
I suspect that, in time, their even-handed coverage of both will be seen to be just that. It might not be as thrilling as some of the coverage of the events that we have seen from some other media outlets.
-
No since Jeremy Corbyn's leadership was status quo and they didn't have a leader in mind.
Where is this rule book you are reading from?
The rest of your post was too Vladish for me, try again in English?
-
Where is this rule book you are reading from?
The rest of your post was too Vladish for me, try again in English?
Don't you mean Swanglish?
-
Won't the voters just cease to be voters?
And that is, of course, the most important job in opposition. To prevent losing your existing voters and to persuade those who previously hadn't voted for you to do so.
Corbyn seems completely disinterested in this as a concept. Someone once said that he seems to be moving toward a situation where Labour membership and Labour voters are one and the same and seems comfortable with this - in other words you have a tiny block of ultra-committed ideologues but are ignored by the wider public.
-
Corbyn seems completely disinterested in this as a concept. Someone once said that he seems to be moving toward a situation where Labour membership and Labour voters are one and the same and seems comfortable with this - in other words you have a tiny block of ultra-committed ideologues but are ignored by the wider public.
That is the SWP idea of a small sharp axe is better than a big blunt one. That may be ok for Dave Sparts who don't seriously want to be in power, it is not a position that the leader of HM Opposition should take.
-
And that is, of course, the most important job in opposition. To prevent losing your existing voters and to persuade those who previously hadn't voted for you to do so.
I don't think that is a given, I think the most important job in opposition is to hold the government to account.
Corbyn seems completely disinterested in this as a concept. Someone once said that he seems to be moving toward a situation where Labour membership and Labour voters are one and the same and seems comfortable with this - in other words you have a tiny block of ultra-committed ideologues but are ignored by the wider public.
When asked he claims to have momentum (pun) from election wins, not that I agree but that is what he claims.
There is a hard left\romantic idealists political group in the UK, they feel under-represented, controlling the Labour party makes sense to them.
-
I don't think that is a given, I think the most important job in opposition is to hold the government to account.
To hold the government to account is the roll of all of parliament outside of those actually in government, hence stuff like select committees. The specific role of an opposition (if they are any good) is not just that but to present themselves credibly to win the next general election and to do so requires them to improve their electoral position by gaining new votes and not losing existing ones.
When asked he claims to have momentum (pun) from election wins, not that I agree but that is what he claims.
Where - he has won a couple of locked on solid Labour seat by-elections. He hasn't gained any seats in a by-election (not that he has had any opportunity). He lost council seats in May, when any opposition with a serious chance of winning a forthcoming general election should have been winning loads against a second term government. He was trounced in Scotland, being beaten into third place by the Tories, lost ground in Wales.
The one and only impressive result is London - but frankly that was in spite of Corbyn rather than because of him.
There is a hard left\romantic idealists political group in the UK, they feel under-represented, controlling the Labour party makes sense to them.
Indeed, but I've never had time for that view. I want the Labour party to be a strong, pragmatic centre left party that can reach way beyond the hard left ideolists - one that attracts voters to consider that they would be a good government and to vote accordingly. Ultimately any number of sterilise political meetings debating ideological points doesn't change anyone's life. Nor going out on a protest and holding a placard. Nope in politics you change people's lives by getting elected and actually being able to implement change.
But that las point is the crux - the hard left idealists are terrified of actually having power, because they'd have to do stuff and they'd be held accountable for it.
You can tell that I've spent far too much time in the company of SWP members who left the Labour party in the 1990s to keep their ideology pure :D
-
Given that you seem to be incensed that I hadn't replied to that part of your post, I shall.
Who pays the salaries of the British representatives in the European parliament and on the commission? Well the UK tax payer does, in exactly the same way as they do for Westminster representatives. Where do you think the money comes from to pay them, JK. Do you think it is magically conjured out of thin air. Nope the costs of the EU are paid for by tax raised at member state level.
The two bits in my post were part of a single point or statement. They went together, and so could not be answered separately.
Unless I am grossly mistaken the EU isn't a tax raising body.
No it's worse than that it is a tributary system of servility.
-
To hold the government to account is the roll of all of parliament outside of those actually in government, hence stuff like select committees. The specific role of an opposition (if they are any good) is not just that but to present themselves credibly to win the next general election and to do so requires them to improve their electoral position by gaining new votes and not losing existing ones.
That is your opinion.
Where - he has won a couple of locked on solid Labour seat by-elections. He hasn't gained any seats in a by-election (not that he has had any opportunity). He lost council seats in May, when any opposition with a serious chance of winning a forthcoming general election should have been winning loads against a second term government. He was trounced in Scotland, being beaten into third place by the Tories, lost ground in Wales.
The one and only impressive result is London - but frankly that was in spite of Corbyn rather than because of him.
I agree but Corbyn doesn't, this refutes your earlier assertion "Corbyn seems completely disinterested in this as a concept".
Indeed, but I've never had time for that view. I want the Labour party to be a strong, pragmatic centre left party that can reach way beyond the hard left ideolists - one that attracts voters to consider that they would be a good government and to vote accordingly. Ultimately any number of sterilise political meetings debating ideological points doesn't change anyone's life. Nor going out on a protest and holding a placard. Nope in politics you change people's lives by getting elected and actually being able to implement change.
True but whilst you argue for the centre left others argue a different way, I would suggest that whilst there are more centre left voters, there are less centre left activists. Actually i don't know that but if that is correct then the centre left will lose the Labour party and have to find a new home.
But that las point is the crux - the hard left idealists are terrified of actually having power, because they'd have to do stuff and they'd be held accountable for it.
I suggest you are overreaching here, not all are like that, many of their supporters are though! (eyes Gonzo)
You can tell that I've spent far too much time in the company of SWP members who left the Labour party in the 1990s to keep their ideology pure :D
No doubt! :)
-
True but whilst you argue for the centre left others argue a different way, I would suggest that whilst there are more centre left voters, there are less centre left activists. Actually i don't know that but if that is correct then the centre left will lose the Labour party and have to find a new home.
I'm not sure that is true.
Certainly in my experience the activists tend to be more centrist than the wider membership - certainly post Corbyn. Round my way I hardly any of the main activists - the ones who actually do the hard work - are Corbyn supporters. And I think that makes sense, because most of the people who are prepared to spend vast amounts of their free time as councillors, or delivering leaflets, or canvassing etc etc do so because they want more than anything to win elections. And they understand that you can't do that from the extremes.
Those members sat at home fighting their armchair revolutions may well be hard core Corbynites, but they aren't activists.
-
So today there is a new PM after yet another astonishing 24 hours.
Corbyn has been officially challenged as leader of the Labour party.
And what is he doing to demonstrate his leadership throughout these unprecedented turbulent times ...
He is addressing the Cuba Solidarity Campaign - I mean WTF.
You couldn't make it up.
-
I'm not sure that is true.
Certainly in my experience the activists tend to be more centrist than the wider membership - certainly post Corbyn. Round my way I hardly any of the main activists - the ones who actually do the hard work - are Corbyn supporters. And I think that makes sense, because most of the people who are prepared to spend vast amounts of their free time as councillors, or delivering leaflets, or canvassing etc etc do so because they want more than anything to win elections. And they understand that you can't do that from the extremes.
I'm defining an activist as someone who will join a party, don't really care what you call them.
Those members sat at home fighting their armchair revolutions may well be hard core Corbynites, but they aren't activists.
Fine lets call them armchair whatever, assuming this goes the distance you have a fight:-
1. Number that will join and vote from hard left\idealists.
2. Number that will join and vote from centre left.
I'm betting there are more of 1, you?
-
I'm defining an activist as someone who will join a party, don't really care what you call them.
Anyone who is an activist knows the difference between an activist and just a party member. Typically of your membership perhaps only 10% will be activists.
In the leadership election constituency parties can formally endorse a candidate and this will involve the core activists (the committee and members committed enough to turn up to a meeting). Last year Corbyn was nominated by 25% of the constituency parties. Now that's clearly a lot, but rather less compelling than the 49% of the member votes he got in the actual elections.
So that's pretty clear evidence that, certainly last year the activist block was rather more centre-ist than the wider membership.
-
Fine lets call them armchair whatever, assuming this goes the distance you have a fight:-
1. Number that will join and vote from hard left\idealists.
2. Number that will join and vote from centre left.
I'm betting there are more of 1, you?
Yes you are probably right - but here lies one of the other divisive features of the whole mess. So Corbyn is completely at odds with his parliamentary party, but he also has far less support amongst the actual activists out in the consistencies - those that do the work. His core consistency are the armchair revolutionaries, and that really irritates the activists - nothing that a tireless party worker hates more than another party member who is quick to spout their views but won't deliver a single leaflet, knock on a single door and wouldn't be seen dead standing as a councillor.
-
Anyone who is an activist knows the difference between an activist and just a party member. Typically of your membership perhaps only 10% will be activists.
In the leadership election constituency parties can formally endorse a candidate and this will involve the core activists (the committee and members committed enough to turn up to a meeting). Last year Corbyn was nominated by 25% of the constituency parties. Now that's clearly a lot, but rather less compelling than the 49% of the member votes he got in the actual elections.
So that's pretty clear evidence that, certainly last year the activist block was rather more centre-ist than the wider membership.
Not debating any point here I know less than you about the internal workings I did hear on Daily Politics that momentum are moving in to take over. The leadership battle is one battle the PLP is another, two battles and the war is won.
-
Norway is still partially in the EU and subject to its madness, such as free movement.
Norway is not in the EU. Look at the list of states in the EU, you will not find Norway on it.
And why do you characterise the ability to move freely taking jobs wherever you like as being madness? Surely a freer world is a better world.
Anyway there's an existential crisis going on in the EU caused by our referendum. The knives are coming out for 'Caesar'.
Yes, our stupidity (your stupidity - I keep forgetting I voted against the idiocy) is in danger of destroying the greatest project of cooperation between sovereign states there has ever been. They're not going to thank us for that.
-
Not debating any point here I know less than you about the internal workings I did hear on Daily Politics that momentum are moving in to take over. The leadership battle is one battle the PLP is another, two battles and the war is won.
You mean "lost".
The war is not meant to be for who has control ,of the Labour party but who has control of the country - the people or the corporations. A hard left Labour party is never going to challenge the Tories.
-
You mean "lost".
The war is not meant to be for who has control ,of the Labour party but who has control of the country - the people or the corporations. A hard left Labour party is never going to challenge the Tories.
Semantics, I agree but they can't win a GE the hard left disagree with us both, Corbyn genuinely believes he can win.
-
Not debating any point here I know less than you about the internal workings I did hear on Daily Politics that momentum are moving in to take over. The leadership battle is one battle the PLP is another, two battles and the war is won.
There are three battles, the leadership, the PLP and the CLPs.
Currently Corbyn has won the leadership (whether that remains we may see today), the PLP is currently massively lost (hence the overwhelming vote of no confidence). The CLPs is perhaps the most interesting battle ground, with a view that winning the CLP battle will ultimately result in winning the PLP battle as centrist MPs are deselected and replaced by Corbynites.
Now I think that will be much harder than many imagine. First CLPs tend to be very loyal to their MP - even if they are somewhat ideologically at odds with the membership in that constituency. There is a kind of equivalent to the 'I kind stand tories, but my mate who is a tory is great'. So given that the constituency will have worked together with the MP to get them elected (perhaps several times) they tend to be rather loyal and supportive. Don't forget that the membership will likely know the MP well, have socialised with him or her, perhaps visited Parliament with them and will be, to an extent, in awe of the notion that this person is an MP. Coupled with that, most MPs tend to be be pretty hard working so they tend to command respect in their local party for their position and hard work, regardless of their ideology.
So I don't think it is at all a given that the Streatham CLP would deselect Umunna, nor Leeds Central deselect Benn, nor Stoke central deselect Hunt.
And there is another point - to deselect their sitting MP the CLP would need to select someone else - and they have to agree. Almost by definition this will be someone much less experienced that the obvious candidate (their sitting MP) and likely there would be no one person commanding universal support as an alternative to the sitting MP. I've seen this myself when a sitting MP decided not to stand again and all hell breaks lose between rival factions.
The final point is about actual electability. Again, by definition a sitting MP has been popular enough amongst the wider electorate to be voted in - and in most cases there is an incumbency bonus, in other words a sitting MP gains perhaps 1000 votes extra on the basis that they are simply the current MP, with high recognition factor, plus some level of personal vote from people they've helped who might not otherwise be natural supporters. CLPs know this very, very well so they run the risk that by deselecting their sitting MP (an election winner) that they lose that bonus, plus hack off a portion of the wider electorate who don't understand why are few extreme activists are preventing them from voting for their popular MP and putting up someone they don't know or trust instead. Result, in the more marginal constituencies - deselect your sitting MP, replace with a Corbynite and end up with a tory MP, or a UKIP etc after the election.
-
There are three battles, the leadership, the PLP and the CLPs.
No, whilst the primary role of opposition is subjective, I have no doubt that the centrists regard their primary role as to form a credible government. If the leadership is lost then how can the Labour party form a government, they won't even be able to form a credible opposition!
If Corbyn wins and holds firm the only hope for a centre left government is a new party.
Won't be decided today either both sides will go to court.
-
No, whilst the primary role of opposition is subjective, I have no doubt that the centrists regard their primary role as to form a credible government. If the leadership is lost then how can the Labour party form a government, they won't even be able to form a credible opposition!
If Corbyn wins and holds firm the only hope for a centre left government is a new party.
A glance at history suggests that's not the only way. In the early 90s Labour was taken over by the hard left and a new party was formed of the centrists - that didn't turn out so well did it and eventually Labour clawed its way back to the centre ground and began winning elections again.
So you are right that Corbyn might cling on now, but if he is soundly beaten in a general election it will be very, very difficult for him to hold on, nor to make any kind of credible case for positioning themselves on the hard left. There will be a re-appraisal and the party will begin to track back toward the centre. This seems to be the way of things - a kind of cyclical movement. We've seen it in Labour, we've seen it in the Tories too.
Won't be decided today either both sides will go to court.
Perhaps, but given the unprecedented number of unexpected events over the past few weeks I wouldn't bet on it.
-
Semantics, I agree but they can't win a GE the hard left disagree with us both,
I certainly think there are some on the hard left who have so lost touch with reality that they genuinely believe that.
Corbyn genuinely believes he can win.
However I don't think that Corbyn is one of those people. I don't think he really thinks he can win a general election, he isn't that out of touch and lacking reason. I expect that he fully understands that the results he has been getting are way off what he would need to be doing at this stage in the cycle in opposition to have a hope in hell of winning a general election in 2020 (or earlier). But his key goal is ideological purity rather than the pragmatism needed to place yourself in a position to persuade 37% plus of the electorate to vote for you.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-36773355
What chance of any sort of settlement in the Labour Party now violence has broken out between the factions. We've never seen anything like this in recent times.
-
If Corbyn wins and holds firm the only hope for a centre left government is a new party.
So you're ruling out the Lib Dems then.
-
So you're ruling out the Lib Dems then.
He is also ruling out Corbyn eventually going (perhaps following a catastrophic election defeat) and Labour moving back to the centre ground.
Either seem equally likely as being successful as a new party forming which is sufficiently popular to win an election.
-
Norway is not in the EU. Look at the list of states in the EU, you will not find Norway on it.
And why do you characterise the ability to move freely taking jobs wherever you like as being madness? Surely a freer world is a better world.
Address what I said about how Norway is forced to obey the EU's political rules.
So if you are in favour of freedom as being a good thing, a better world, then you wouldn't mind if people/tramps just walked into your home at any time of day and kipped there for a couple months taking your food, using your bath and bed, and putting the heating on to suit themselves?
You are such a duplicitous, two faced git!!!
Yes, our stupidity (your stupidity - I keep forgetting I voted against the idiocy) is in danger of destroying the greatest project of cooperation between sovereign states there has ever been. They're not going to thank us for that.
The EU is great in the same way the USSR was great - dead.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-36773355
What chance of any sort of settlement in the Labour Party now violence has broken out between the factions. We've never seen anything like this in recent times.
I don't think either side wants a settlement each is fighting for the Labour brand.
-
Address what I said about how Norway is forced to obey the EU's political rules.
So what - the referendum didn't ask about what rules we might or might not follow - it asked whether we should remain a member of the EU or leave the EU.
If we end up like Norway we will have left the EU, the mandate for leaving the EU will have been fulfilled.
-
So if you are in favour of freedom as being a good thing, a better world, then you wouldn't mind if people/tramps just walked into your home at any time of day and kipped there for a couple months taking your food, using your bath and bed, and putting the heating on to suit themselves?
You are such a duplicitous, two faced git!!!
Jeremy,
You know that expression, "Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."?
This is exactly the sort of situation it refers to.
-
Impressive piece of gerrymandering by the NEC to screw Corbyn.
-
Of course
http://evolvepolitics.com/angela-eagle-may-pull-leadership-race-corbyn-ballot/
-
Address what I said about how Norway is forced to obey the EU's political rules.
That's what we have been telling you since this whole thing started. After we leave the EU we will still have to obey the rules unless we want to stop trading with them.
So if you are in favour of freedom as being a good thing, a better world, then you wouldn't mind if people/tramps just walked into your home at any time of day and kipped there for a couple months taking your food, using your bath and bed, and putting the heating on to suit themselves?
There clearly are limits on freedom, but being able to travel and work in a foreign country should not be one of them.
You are such a duplicitous, two faced git!!!
You're an stupid arsehole who seems to be happy with the destruction of the country that I love. You haven't got a fucking clue about what it is like to live in a diverse World of nation states that want to cooperate.
I hope you're happy with the unnecessary pain you've caused to lots of people.
-
Of course
http://evolvepolitics.com/angela-eagle-may-pull-leadership-race-corbyn-ballot/
How stupid are these people? Didn't it occur to any of them that, in a ballot of the party members, the result would be the same as last time?
-
How stupid are these people? Didn't it occur to any of them that, in a ballot of the party members, the result would be the same as last time?
Yeah they are stupid that is what it is, all they need to do is get in touch with Jeremy cos he's like awesome and shit. :)
Don't think its a done deal, even in the PLP there are some from the hard left that have conceded.
Owen Smith on Twitter "I asked @jeremycorbyn 3 times if he was prepared to see our party split & worse, wanted it to. He offered no answer. In the same meeting, in response to the same question @johnmcdonnellMP shrugged his shoulders and said 'if that's what it takes'."
Its going to split just a battle of who owns the brand.
-
John Macdonnel “They have been plotting and conniving,” Mr McDonnell can be heard saying in a video. “The only good thing about it is that, as plotters, they’re f***ing useless, "
Kinder politics my arse!
-
So what - the referendum didn't ask about what rules we might or might not follow - it asked whether we should remain a member of the EU or leave the EU.
If we end up like Norway we will have left the EU, the mandate for leaving the EU will have been fulfilled.
No it would not because this is not what the people on the streets asked for and talked about, nor what they were offered in control of immigration by a points system, not paying into the EU or being subject to its political rules.
-
That's what we have been telling you since this whole thing started. After we leave the EU we will still have to obey the rules unless we want to stop trading with them.
And I've explained why that isn't the case.
There clearly are limits on freedom, but being able to travel and work in a foreign country should not be one of them.
So you would be fine with strangers just walking into your home and living there then?
.....and so why do you say that? Who are you to dictate such terms?
You're an stupid arsehole who seems to be happy with the destruction of the country that I love. You haven't got a fucking clue about what it is like to live in a diverse World of nation states that want to cooperate.
I hope you're happy with the unnecessary pain you've caused to lots of people.
You do talk a load of crap. Who said anything about not cooperating? What destruction?
As for pain caused, you address that comment to the EU on how they have treated Greece.
-
And I've explained why that isn't the case.
Wrong JK. You've tried to explain, but managed not to explain. This is possibly because you aren't taking the experiences of other European countries who are in the same position we find ourselves moving towards, into account.
-
No it would not because this is not what the people on the streets asked for and talked about, nor what they were offered in control of immigration by a points system, not paying into the EU or being subject to its political rules.
What so all 17 million leavers interpreted the EU referendum in exactly the same way as you? Talked to them all did you?
How very convenient for your particular mindset.
-
No it would not because this is not what the people on the streets asked for and talked about
How do you know? All we know is that a slim majority of people who voted wanted to leave the EU. We don't know what their vision for the future is.
nor what they were offered in control of immigration by a points system, not paying into the EU or being subject to its political rules.
Nobody has offered anything yet. Maybe your friend and euro-leech Nigel Farage said something, but he is not in power, in fact he ran away.
-
And I've explained why that isn't the case.
It is the case. A trade deal involves both sides abiding by certain rules. Do you not want us to do a trade deal with the EU?
So you would be fine with strangers just walking into your home and living there then?
What's that got to do with anything? Seriously. What makes you think that is analogous to free movement of labour. Nobody is asking you to have immigrants in your house.
As for pain caused, you address that comment to the EU on how they have treated Greece.
The EU is not responsible for the pain that you have caused and will cause by your stupid vote for Little England.
-
Impressive piece of gerrymandering by the NEC to screw Corbyn.
Well, they're deselecting the membership.
-
Wrong JK. You've tried to explain, but managed not to explain. This is possibly because you aren't taking the experiences of other European countries who are in the same position we find ourselves moving towards, into account.
I'm talking about political rules and policy not trading rules.
-
I'm talking about political rules and policy not trading rules.
But we can't unilaterally declare the rules; they have to be agreed by both sides - hence they are both political and trading rules.
-
What so all 17 million leavers interpreted the EU referendum in exactly the same way as you? Talked to them all did you?
How very convenient for your particular mindset.
They never talked about EEA, as many of the dumbasses wouldn't even know what that was, but they all knew about and heard about the immigration and control issues. It may not have been top of their list but they at least had heard this. All the points you lot are mentioning like EEA, soft Brexit and so on they never knew about - leave meant leave to them. And this is what the people asked for.
-
as many of the dumbasses
Such great respect you have for your fellow leavers......
-
They never talked about EEA, as many of the dumbasses wouldn't even know what that was, but they all knew about and heard about the immigration and control issues. It may not have been top of their list but they at least had heard this. All the points you lot are mentioning like EEA, soft Brexit and so on they never knew about - leave meant leave to them. And this is what the people asked for.
I'm sorry - EEA - i.e. Norway as an example of a post Brexit settlement was mentioned extensively during the campaign. Sure it was only one of various possible settlements mentioned but to try to suggest no-one ever mentioned it as a potential post-brexit option is non-sense.
And you keep banging on about migration - while I accept it was a major theme of the non official UKIP leave.eu campaign it wasn't the major message from the official vote.leave campaign. Their clearly defining message (a lie, but defining nonetheless) was that leaving the EU would mean Ł350m extra for the NHS.
-
What's that got to do with anything? Seriously. What makes you think that is analogous to free movement of labour. Nobody is asking you to have immigrants in your house.
It is analogous because this is my country and no foreigner should be allowed to just walk in here and use the facilities free of charge.
The EU is not responsible for the pain that you have caused and will cause by your stupid vote for Little England.
That wasn't your argument before, but that anything that causes pain and is detrimental to people should be avoided and not imposed on them. This is what the EU did to Greece. As you support the EU this makes you two faced!!!
-
Well, they're deselecting the membership.
Wonder if there is a legal case there to get it overturned....?
-
But we can't unilaterally declare the rules; they have to be agreed by both sides - hence they are both political and trading rules.
We trade with the US, what political rules do they impose on us say with our benefit system, or gun laws, or pollution levels or carbon/climate change policy?
-
Such great respect you have for your fellow leavers......
That's true of most voters.....look at the bollocks talk up by the Remainers here. ;D
-
I'm sorry - EEA - i.e. Norway as an example of a post Brexit settlement was mentioned extensively during the campaign. Sure it was only one of various possible settlements mentioned but to try to suggest no-one ever mentioned it as a potential post-brexit option is non-sense.
I'm not talking about the chat amongst the media bubble lot but the person in the street and audiences etc. Most wouldn't even understand the implication of things like EEA.
And you keep banging on about migration - while I accept it was a major theme of the non official UKIP leave.eu campaign it wasn't the major message from the official vote.leave campaign. Their clearly defining message (a lie, but defining nonetheless) was that leaving the EU would mean Ł350m extra for the NHS.
Now you are just lying!!!
The Vote.Leave lot took up Farage's point system for immigration. There was a big fanfare about this fact when it happened. They also talked about control and all that.
-
Now you are just lying!!!
The Vote.Leave lot took up Farage's point system for immigration. There was a big fanfare about this fact when it happened. They also talked about control and all that.
So they put a message about migration on their battle bus then ... oh, nope that's wrong the message on the battle bus and on posters behind speakers at key events was all about extra money for the NHS. Without doubt that was the key defining message from the official leave campaign throughout.
-
So they put a message about migration on their battle bus then ... oh, nope that's wrong the message on the battle bus and on posters behind speakers at key events was all about extra money for the NHS. Without doubt that was the key defining message from the official leave campaign throughout.
That was one of the messages and it came fairly late in the campaign iirc.
-
That was one of the messages and it came fairly late in the campaign iirc.
What will be on the side of the Brexit bus next?...........''Shit Happens''?
-
That was one of the messages and it came fairly late in the campaign iirc.
Rubbish
The battle bus (and its Ł350m for the NHS slogan) was rolled out pretty well on day one of the campaign.
Actually the reality was that migration came late to the table in the campaign. The early part of the campaign was all about the economy on one side (we're dooooomed) and on what we would spend the fantasy Ł350m on on the other side.
Migration was hardly mentioned until after purdah, which was well into the campaign.
-
What will be on the side of the Brexit bus next?...........''Shit Happens''?
Have you been injured by an accident that wasn't your fault ... if there's blame there's a claim - sue the sh*t out of Johnson, Farage, Gove & Leadsom (solicitors inc).
-
Rubbish
The battle bus (and its Ł350m for the NHS slogan) was rolled out pretty well on day one of the campaign.
Actually the reality was that migration came late to the table in the campaign. The early part of the campaign was all about the economy on one side (we're dooooomed) and on what we would spend the fantasy Ł350m on on the other side.
Migration was hardly mentioned until after purdah, which was well into the campaign.
See, they kept the best till last like all good hosts.
-
Have you been injured by an accident that wasn't your fault ... if there's blame there's a claim - sue the sh*t out of Johnson, Farage, Gove & Leadsom (solicitors inc).
The person to blame here is Cameron not them. Though strictly speaking the real culprit is the EU project.
-
The person to blame here is Cameron not them. Though strictly speaking the real culprit is the EU project.
Blimey you are a humourless sod aren't you. I was actually only making a joke.
And yes Cameron is equally culpable in the 'crime' - we will all be paying a heavy price for the varying political vanities, poor judgment and extreme views of Messers Cameron, Johnson, Farage and Gove plus Mrs Leadsom.
I leave you to determine which of those people is guilt of poor judgment, which of political vanity and which of extreme views.
-
Blimey you are a humourless sod aren't you. I was actually only making a joke.
And yes Cameron is equally culpable in the 'crime' - we will all be paying a heavy price for the varying political vanities, poor judgment and extreme views of Messers Cameron, Johnson, Farage and Gove plus Mrs Leadsom.
I leave you to determine which of those people is guilt of poor judgment, which of political vanity and which of extreme views.
Only Cameron is to blame here, with all the pro-EUers. ;D
-
Only Cameron is to blame here, with all the pro-EUers. ;D
Leave crashed the car and tried to leave the scene.
Fortunately WPC May apprehended BoJo the Clown and Bellatrix Le Strange and they are now serving their community service.
-
Only Cameron is to blame here, with all the pro-EUers. ;D
When I saw the words ''Turkey Coup'' I thought ''yet another article on how Brexitters won the vote.''
-
When I saw the words ''Turkey Coup'' I thought ''yet another article on how Brexitters won the vote.''
Yeap, only your warped mind could make that conspiracy link.
-
It is analogous because this is my country and no foreigner should be allowed to just walk in here and use the facilities free of charge.
The naked racism is exposed.
-
The naked racism is exposed.
Once again, Jeremy, you show with clear clarity your ignorance of the real issues that face mankind by blinding yourself with words you have very little inkling of their meaning and scope. In essence you are way off the mark.
-
It is analogous because this is my country and no foreigner should be allowed to just walk in here and use the facilities free of charge.
What even if they are also paying into the tax system in exactly the same manner as a UK national as they are working?
And do you accept the same restrictions the other way around. So I trust you have never benefited from free health care in other EU countries, for example when on holiday in France. That being an example of a situation where you wouldn't be working there and therefore would never have paid into the French tax system.
Or is it a case of lop sider jingoism - no Johnny foreigners using our facilities, but expecting that we can walk into a French or Spanish hospital on holiday following an accident and get free health care under the reciprocal EU system.
-
Once again, Jeremy, you show with clear clarity your ignorance of the real issues that face mankind by blinding yourself with words you have very little inkling of their meaning and scope. In essence you are way off the mark.
You have no clue and no answer.
The EU immigrants who come here, on average pay more to the exchequer than they take out. This is in contrast to the natives. Our population is ageing. We need immigrants.
-
You have no clue and no answer.
The EU immigrants who come here, on average pay more to the exchequer than they take out. This is in contrast to the natives. Our population is ageing. We need immigrants.
Are you an immigrant, Jeremy?
-
Are you an immigrant, Jeremy?
Why on earth would you ask that.
You don't need to be an immigrant to recognise the benefits that migration brings to the UK.
-
Are you an immigrant, Jeremy?
Are you a racist?
-
Are you a racist?
No.
Now answer my question :)
-
Why on earth would you ask that.
You don't need to be an immigrant to recognise the benefits that migration brings to the UK.
Because it would explain why Jeremy is so cross about it.
Knowing what the P stands for in Jeremy P it is possible that the Brexit vote may actually feel quite threatening to him, not just that he doesn't agree with it.
Especially the implication by some racists in this country that 'foreigners" should go home etc.
Jeremy is so cross about it that I just wondered if he is worried that the whole Brexit thing is a threat to him and his family.
If so, I'd like to reassure him that as far as I'm am concerned he is very welcome here.
I may not have the same insecurity because I am more invisible with a British sounding name.
It occurs to me Jeremy may see the Brexit vote as being a vote against him and his family, and see it as an emerging threat.
Plus he might also relate more to the polish people who have come here and made successful life for themselves and Brexit has created all sorts of uncertainties.
It's important to point out that I am welcoming of Jeremy and his family being here.
It's just he is so angry about it, I feel there is more to it.
The question was asked because I thought it might be more helpful to bring it into the open and then perhaps we can reassure Jeremy and maybe help him if something unpleasant did go off.
Well at least we could talk about things, maybe someone might be able to help.
I could of course be completely wrong, but maybe Brexit and some of the implications of it have caused people with a foreign sounding name to feel a bit insecure.
I think we need to understand that, if it does, because we need to make sure they are ok.
🌹
-
No.
Now answer my question :)
Why? If you are not a racist, my status as an immigrant or not would not matter to you.
-
Because it would explain why Jeremy is so cross about it.
And you don't think the fact that the British people (well,the English people) have done something unutterably stupid is enough to be angry about?
Jeremy is so cross about it that I just wondered if he is worried that the whole Brexit thing is a threat to him and his family.
I have a job that may go away if the economy tanks. I have young teenage relatives whose vista of opportunities have suddenly narrowed. When I go to Europe, which I do frequently, I now have to explain that I'm not a small minded Little Englander and neither are nearly half of my fellow countrymen.
Why isn't that enough to be angry about?
-
And you don't think the fact that the British people (well,the English people) have done something unutterably stupid is enough to be angry about?
I have a job that may go away if the economy tanks. I have young teenage relatives whose vista of opportunities have suddenly narrowed. When I go to Europe, which I do frequently, I now have to explain that I'm not a small minded Little Englander and neither are nearly half of my fellow countrymen.
Why isn't that enough to be angry about?
The English people just wanted to take control back from Brussels.
Commercial fishermen for example felt the EU has done enormous harm to our fishing stocks and an awful lot of fishermen voted leave for that reason.
The people who voted leave seem to want to be able to make our own trade deals with countries outside the EU.
For a while these choices will not be good for the UK and I'm sure we will struggle.
Businesses will need to adapt and find new opportunities.
But I think the leave supporters think the end result will at least be in the right direction.
One of my sons who is in his twenties is not impressed with us leaving the EU either, he tells me we will still have to abide by many of the rules to trade with the EU or to have a Norway type deal but have no say in its make up at all.
It is going to complicate things.
I'm not angry at leaving the EU, probably because my choice floated for a while between the leave and remain vote.
I could see perhaps we would have different opportunities under leave, and more choices in how we do things. The rest of my family wouldn't have been bothered if the Uk had the euro, but I'm a bit more traditionalist. I like the pound.
I like the idea of being more self determining, of being free to trade outside the eu on our own terms.
It has nothing to do with being a little Englander really, but about not having to do what is decided in Brussels.
I voted remain in the end because I didn't feel I knew enough about the EU, so it was a vote for the known.
I was unsure about its affect on expats for example, or on people that had moved here from the EU and started up businesses and settled.
It was to much a leap in the dark to get my vote ( I didn't really listen much to either side and still think in retrospect neither knew what would happen)
But now it has happened, I am thinking we need to make the most of the opportunities that arise because of it.
If the economy tanks a lot of us may lose our jobs.
All I can say is, my husband used to have a safe job at the bank and one day he chose to take a big risk by taking redundancy.
I was very concerned as my children were small and we relied on his income.
For a bit I was insecure. Especially as he had no new job and no income.
Then he applied for another job ( among many he didn't get) with more money and better prospects.
Had he always stayed in the safe job at the bank he would have ended up, because the job changed, working in a call centre. Even though he had a degree and diploma in computing.
Sometimes you have to take a risk to see the opportunity.
It can go badly wrong, but sometimes even when it goes wrong and you are made redundant it can be the most positive thing that has ever happened to you.
It's comfortable being stuck in a rut, but sometimes it pays to find the opportunities by not going for the safe option.
That's how I see us leaving now.
The EU was the safe rut, we have to find the opportunities created by us leaving it.
Like when my husband became redundant, things might get a bit tough, but we need to look for the opportunities to put us back on track, to being where we want to be.
That's why I'm not cross.
Who knows what opportunities might arise out of us " leaving the rut"
🌹🍷
-
The English people just wanted to take control back from Brussels.
What do you mean by 'The English people' Rose?
Do you mean people who are native English or people living in England. There is a difference.
-
Because it would explain why Jeremy is so cross about it.
Knowing what the P stands for in Jeremy P it is possible that the Brexit vote may actually feel quite threatening to him, not just that he doesn't agree with it.
Especially the implication by some racists in this country that 'foreigners" should go home etc.
Jeremy is so cross about it that I just wondered if he is worried that the whole Brexit thing is a threat to him and his family.
If so, I'd like to reassure him that as far as I'm am concerned he is very welcome here.
I may not have the same insecurity because I am more invisible with a British sounding name.
It occurs to me Jeremy may see the Brexit vote as being a vote against him and his family, and see it as an emerging threat.
Plus he might also relate more to the polish people who have come here and made successful life for themselves and Brexit has created all sorts of uncertainties.
It's important to point out that I am welcoming of Jeremy and his family being here.
It's just he is so angry about it, I feel there is more to it.
The question was asked because I thought it might be more helpful to bring it into the open and then perhaps we can reassure Jeremy and maybe help him if something unpleasant did go off.
Well at least we could talk about things, maybe someone might be able to help.
I could of course be completely wrong, but maybe Brexit and some of the implications of it have caused people with a foreign sounding name to feel a bit insecure.
I think we need to understand that, if it does, because we need to make sure they are ok.
🌹
I may be wrong, and please correct me if I am, but you don't come across in this post as someone who is deeply embedded in communities (professional, geographical and personal) who are very largely remain.
I am - now I freely accept that this means my 'world' is much narrower than the wider UK electorate, but what this does is it gives me a very good understanding of the mindset of 'remain' voters and supporters. And that's why your suggestion that Jeremy must be a migrant because he is angry seems bizarre - as he seems to be simply giving a very similar view to countless colleagues, family and friends I know who are remain, most of whom aren't immigrants but multi generational British.
So amongst my British friends, family and colleagues there is a real sense of anger over what has happened as well as shock, anxiety, confusion and concern.
Interestingly it is largely the Brits who are angry - anger is much less common amongst the many, many people from other countries I know, who are colleagues and friends - they are much more likely to be worried, anxious, saddened and shocked (and in many cases making plans to relocate) - but not angry.
The anger comes from the Brits aimed at other British people and what they have done to the UK.
Oh and I'm happy to provide my background - born in England of English and Scottish parents - both sides of the family have lived in Britain for as far back as we have been able to trace our families (about 150-200 years) and probably much, much longer. Married to a Welsh woman, whose family a few generations back (about 100 years ago) had connections with Ireland.
So I am not a migrant.
-
Dear Rose,
Just to add, I am not a migrant but Jeremyp is expressing ( a lot better than me ) exactly how I feel about Brexit.
Gonnagle.
-
The anger comes from the Brits aimed at other British people and what they have done to the UK.
Anger at democracy, if I were you I'd think about changing peoples minds by coming up with better arguments. Might be an idea to get behind Owen Smith the Labour Party leader candidate.
This topic was about that once.
-
I think I've come to the conclusion that none of this was about rational argument. It was always about letting out repressed racism and anger against established hierarchies and elites.
There have been previous periods of Europeans rising up against their own leaders, burning down their cities and destroying the sources of their own success and prosperity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse
-
We trade with the US, what political rules do they impose on us say with our benefit system, or gun laws, or pollution levels or carbon/climate change policy?
You haven't thought this through, have you!
The only game involving the USA will be TTIP. The USA will not bother with concern about the sensibilities of a small economy like that of the UK. The EU has been successfully holding out against the USA's demands for (eg) access by insurance companies into the health systems of EU countries. Do you think that the UK - by itself - could be anywhere as successful?
TTIP Lite will result in the UK becoming the Argentina of Europe and the NHS will be gone. They didn't paint THAT on the side of the Brexit bus.
-
Anger at democracy,
A flawed democratic process in which we have lurched into the most significant change for decades with no plan as to what that looks like, in part down to downright lies perpetrated by the leave campaign. And where the future of our country (65 million people) over decades has been decided by just 17 million (representing just 25% of the population and just 37% of the electorate).
And where it is pretty clear that had the referendum been run again just a week later the result would have been different due to the 'yeh - I'll vote leave as a protest, but it won't happen' attitude.
To embark on a change of this magnitude and to make that a democratic exercise you need to be convinced that a decision for change is the clear and settled view of the people living in the UK. The referendum result cannot possibly be construed as the clear and settled view of the people living in the UK.
-
Anger at democracy ...
No anger at the outcome, although the process was pretty flawed too.
Just because there is a democratic process doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to be angry at the outcome. If parliament votes for Trident renewal today (in a clearly democratic process) does that mean that no-one will be angry at that decision - no, and nor should that be the case.
Democracy is a continuous ongoing process, not a one off point (although we have elections, but we always accept that we will have another election down the line where we can change our minds) - so it is perfectly reasonable to be angry - indeed I am angry, in part, on behalf of people whose futures will be most affected by the decision, but due to their age were unable to vote, including my 17 and 15 year old sons (and my 9 year old daughter, although she unlike the boys didn't have a view).
-
I think I've come to the conclusion that none of this was about rational argument. It was always about letting out repressed racism and anger against established hierarchies and elites.
There have been previous periods of Europeans rising up against their own leaders, burning down their cities and destroying the sources of their own success and prosperity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse
There's also the view that part of the Brexit vote in deprived areas was a vote against austerity. I don't know how you would actually demonstrate this, I suppose through asking people. It would be ironic if Osborne's austerity measures partly led to Brexit, although I suppose in such areas there is a long history of deprivation, deindustrialization, and so on, and also feeling neglected by all political parties. Whether this will change is debatable, but May seemed to be moving leftwards in reply.
-
Brexit and the death penalty
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36803544
-
A flawed democratic process in which we have lurched into the most significant change for decades with no plan as to what that looks like, in part down to downright lies perpetrated by the leave campaign. And where the future of our country (65 million people) over decades has been decided by just 17 million (representing just 25% of the population and just 37% of the electorate).
And where it is pretty clear that had the referendum been run again just a week later the result would have been different due to the 'yeh - I'll vote leave as a protest, but it won't happen' attitude.
To embark on a change of this magnitude and to make that a democratic exercise you need to be convinced that a decision for change is the clear and settled view of the people living in the UK. The referendum result cannot possibly be construed as the clear and settled view of the people living in the UK.
Is this Davey's rules for governing? We voted on a referendum that was in the manifesto of an elected government which introduced an Act which in turn had to go through the elected parliament.
Those are the actual real world rules suggest you start campaigning for Owen Smith because he is with you on this.
-
I think I've come to the conclusion that none of this was about rational argument. It was always about letting out repressed racism and anger against established hierarchies and elites.
There have been previous periods of Europeans rising up against their own leaders, burning down their cities and destroying the sources of their own success and prosperity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse
I don't know why other people voted leave but for me it had nothing to do with race.
-
No anger at the outcome, although the process was pretty flawed too.
Just because there is a democratic process doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to be angry at the outcome. If parliament votes for Trident renewal today (in a clearly democratic process) does that mean that no-one will be angry at that decision - no, and nor should that be the case.
Democracy is a continuous ongoing process, not a one off point (although we have elections, but we always accept that we will have another election down the line where we can change our minds) - so it is perfectly reasonable to be angry - indeed I am angry, in part, on behalf of people whose futures will be most affected by the decision, but due to their age were unable to vote, including my 17 and 15 year old sons (and my 9 year old daughter, although she unlike the boys didn't have a view).
The anger comes from the Brits aimed at other British people and what they have done to the UK.
This post seems to refute your earlier one. Don't worry Davey all of your "credible reports" stated that we would be richer than we are now if we left the EU.
-
The English people just wanted to take control back from Brussels.
Please stop bleating that line. It's bollocks.
Commercial fishermen for example felt the EU has done enormous harm to our fishing stocks and an awful lot of fishermen voted leave for that reason.
But you understand it's bollocks right? British fishermen are in a fix because there aren't enough fish, not because of the EU.
The people who voted leave seem to want to be able to make our own trade deals with countries outside the EU.
Everybody wants to make trade deals with everybody else. Unfortunately, the reality is that 40% of our trade is with the EU. The trade deal with the EU is worth almost as much as all the others put together.
Businesses will need to adapt and find new opportunities.
Agree, because the Brexiters have fucked up our best market.
One of my sons who is in his twenties is not impressed with us leaving the EU either, he tells me we will still have to abide by many of the rules to trade with the EU or to have a Norway type deal but have no say in its make up at all.
He's right. Listen to him. Also, it's his future that people like Jack Knave have fucked up.
It is going to complicate things.
Yes, needlessly.
I'm not angry at leaving the EU, probably because my choice floated for a while between the leave and remain vote.
But stop telling people who actually cared that they shouldn't be angry either.
The rest of my family wouldn't have been bothered if the Uk had the euro, but I'm a bit more traditionalist. I like the pound.
The Euro was always a bad idea, but the Euro is not the EU, it's irrelevant to Brexit.
It has nothing to do with being a little Englander really, but about not having to do what is decided in Brussels.
It has everything to do with being a Little Englander. It seems they will get their wish when Scotland gets its independence.
I voted remain in the end because I didn't feel I knew enough about the EU, so it was a vote for the known.
I appreciate your honesty.
-
Dear Rose,
Just to add, I am not a migrant but Jeremyp is expressing ( a lot better than me ) exactly how I feel about Brexit.
Gonnagle.
Just for the record, I am not an immigrant either. Rose is correct that the P is for a foreign sounding name, but the foreigner in question arrived in the middle of the eighteenth century and his evil taking-our-jobs genes are much diluted by proper English stock.
-
Is this Davey's rules for governing? We voted on a referendum that was in the manifesto of an elected government which introduced an Act which in turn had to go through the elected parliament.
Those are the actual real world rules suggest you start campaigning for Owen Smith because he is with you on this.
And that Act was clear that the referendum was advisory. They could have made it binding (as was the case in the FPTP/AV referendum) but they didn't.
Yet the leavers seem to think it completely unacceptable for parliament to exert its sovereign right to consider an advisory referendum and then chose to ignore it.
-
This post seems to refute your earlier one. Don't worry Davey all of your "credible reports" stated that we would be richer than we are now if we left the EU.
All those credible reports indicated that we would be worse off in both the short and longer term if we left compared to remaining.
And guess what, all those credible organisations are being provided right as far as their predictions for early negative impacts are concerned (puns crashing, impact on credit rating, huge turbulence in the markets, collapse in both business and consumer confidence, growth stalling or even going into reverse).
So it is looking like they were right all along that leaving would have a significant negative impact on the economy compared to remaining in the EU.
-
And that Act was clear that the referendum was advisory. They could have made it binding (as was the case in the FPTP/AV referendum) but they didn't.
Yet the leavers seem to think it completely unacceptable for parliament to exert its sovereign right to consider an advisory referendum and then chose to ignore it.
Some political parties seem to be setting that up as their policy, i.e. to take the referendum as advisory and ignore the result, I think this is it completely acceptable and vice versa.
-
All those credible reports indicated that we would be worse off in both the short and longer term if we left compared to remaining.
And guess what, all those credible organisations are being provided right as far as their predictions for early negative impacts are concerned (puns crashing, impact on credit rating, huge turbulence in the markets, collapse in both business and consumer confidence, growth stalling or even going into reverse).
So it is looking like they were right all along that leaving would have a significant negative impact on the economy compared to remaining in the EU.
I think they predicted a minor recession (-0.05% GDP over two quarters) normally the FTSE is a good guide to future growth which is at a 3 month high.
Yes/No question did all your "credible reports" claim that the long term we'll be better off then we are now having left the EU?
Try not evade the question this time! :)
-
Yes/No question did all your "credible reports" claim that the long term we'll be better off then we are now having left the EU?
Ah yes this is where you claim that a 5% pay rise is better than a 12% pay rise.
People are going to lose livelihoods over this. Have you got anything to say to them?
-
Ah yes this is where you claim that a 5% pay rise is better than a 12% pay rise.
People are going to lose livelihoods over this. Have you got anything to say to them?
If they are convinced of losing it my advice would have been to have voted leave.
-
If they are convinced of losing it my advice would have been to have voted leave.
Many Leavers will be losing their jobs over this. Perhaps it will give them time to ponder the stupidity of their decision.
I believe Cornwall (60-40 for Leave) is now desperately worried about all those lovely grants they get from the EU. You could argue that it is just desserts for the 60% who voted for such a stupid idea, but the 40% deserve our sympathy and your promise of sunlit uplands (not as good as the sunlit uplands we would have had by staying in the EU) at some unspecified time in the future isn't going to feed people now.
What are you going to say to them? Are you going to apologise for your thoughtlessness and xenophobia?
-
Many Leavers will be losing their jobs over this. Perhaps it will give them time to ponder the stupidity of their decision.
I believe Cornwall (60-40 for Leave) is now desperately worried about all those lovely grants they get from the EU. You could argue that it is just desserts for the 60% who voted for such a stupid idea, but the 40% deserve our sympathy and your promise of sunlit uplands (not as good as the sunlit uplands we would have had by staying in the EU) at some unspecified time in the future isn't going to feed people now.
What are you going to say to them? Are you going to apologise for your thoughtlessness and xenophobia?
I was neither thoughtless nor xenophobic, grow up.
-
I was neither thoughtless nor xenophobic, grow up.
You voted Brexit but you seem to be in denial about the consequences of your vote. I think, you need to grow up.
-
You haven't thought this through, have you!
The only game involving the USA will be TTIP. The USA will not bother with concern about the sensibilities of a small economy like that of the UK. The EU has been successfully holding out against the USA's demands for (eg) access by insurance companies into the health systems of EU countries. Do you think that the UK - by itself - could be anywhere as successful?
TTIP Lite will result in the UK becoming the Argentina of Europe and the NHS will be gone. They didn't paint THAT on the side of the Brexit bus.
You haven't thought this through, have you!
We trade about 55 billion a year, both ways, with the US already. We are an important ally in NATO. The US have their own problems, they can't afford to be too choosy. The global map is changing, you need to take this into account.
-
You haven't thought this through, have you!
We trade about 55 billion a year, both ways, with the US already. We are an important ally in NATO. The US have their own problems, they can't afford to be too choosy. The global map is changing, you need to take this into account.
And who is going to be negotiating this? Oh that would be a set of Tory politicians who want to privatise the NHS and think TTIP was a bit wishy washy. Explain how you thought this out?
-
And who is going to be negotiating this? Oh that would be a set of Tory politicians who want to privatise the NHS and think TTIP was a bit wishy washy. Explain how you thought this out?
Negotiate what?
The 55 billion or so is what we trade with the US under WTO rules now and have done for decades.
-
Lillian Greenwood explains why she resigned from the Shadow Cabinet
http://www.liliangreenwood.co.uk/lilian_s_speech_to_nottingham_south_labour_party_members
It's quite an eye opener.
-
And a piece by a shadow arts and culture minister
http://www.debbonaire.co.uk/why_i_have_no_confidence_in_mr_corbyn_s_leadership
-
One problem with the PLP is that they are not organised and have no real substantial support at the CLP level and so not many soldiers to do the necessary leg work. This is because of the PLP's long standing disconnection from their core support and voters. And because of their disconnect from reality they have made one arrogant and hubristic bad decision to the next. They are also not working under a single banner or reason for their vote against Corbyn and so are not a single force against him, except the "Anything but Corbyn" rhetoric, and so to a small measure are fighting amongst themselves as well as against Corbyn. On this basis I can't see them having much of a chance and will have to form a new party...
And Owen Smith sounds to me very much like Ed Miliband, precise but dry, devoid of any real brains and rather nasally.
-
Jeremy
Thank you for the Link to Lillian Greenwoods article
Quite an eye opener.
-
Jeremy
I know Lillian - not well granted; but well enough to chat to on the odd occasions we chance to meet. I have known her for a number of years and she is imho totally trustworthy. I have no reason at all to doubt the account of events she has given.
It is a very sad time for the Labour party.
-
She sounds, from what I just read, like an honest person. A bit plaintive if you don't mind me saying - but she was explaining things to her constituents which explains that somewhat.
What she says here is what, I fear, many feel:
Jeremy has a new Shadow Cabinet but it’s clear to me that he doesn’t understand collective responsibility and that he can't lead a team, so I'm afraid the same problems will eventually emerge in the new front bench. This is not about policy or ideology, it is about competence.
It is all very sad. If Jeremy goes, who is going to be fit enough to take his place?
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36896944
Sounds more like Labour.
Of course if you tax more a group that really good at avoiding tax you don't really get more. The 50p actually resulted in less revenue last time it was introduced I think.
-
Dear Jakswan,
Nah!! someone will have to explain to me about robbing the rich to feed the poor, this is old Labour bullshit, tax the richest one per cent, won't they just move abroad, I am sure this crap has been discussed before.
Minimum guaranteed working hours and the abolition of zero hours contracts
Scrapping trade union reforms that curb the ability of unions to call strikes
To abolish the Department for Work and Pensions, replacing it with a Ministry of Labour and a Department for Social Security
Build 1.5 million homes over five years
Reverse cuts to capital gains tax and inheritance tax
No more cuts to corporation tax
Same rights for agency workers as full time workers
Workers to be placed on company remuneration committees
These are good, they can be discussed, but surely this is something along the same lines as Corbyn wants, this whole Labour Leadership battle is bullshit, get behind Corbyn, he may be boring but Smith is Plastic, the Tories are the real enemy of this country not Corbyn.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Jakswan,
Nah!! someone will have to explain to me about robbing the rich to feed the poor, this is old Labour bullshit, tax the richest one per cent, won't they just move abroad, I am sure this crap has been discussed before.
Its not just been discussed its been done, in the 70s the highest tax rate was c. 90%. Its about idealistic or realistic, go after the big corps Google have more money than they know what to do with!
These are good, they can be discussed, but surely this is something along the same lines as Corbyn wants, this whole Labour Leadership battle is bullshit, get behind Corbyn, he may be boring but Smith is Plastic, the Tories are the real enemy of this country not Corbyn.
Some are good, e.g. some people like zero hour contracts.
Corbyn isn't just boring but inept, the Tories need to be held to account and Corbyn simply isn't capable.
-
Dear Jakswan,
Its not just been discussed its been done, in the 70s the highest tax rate was c. 90%. Its about idealistic or realistic, go after the big corps Google have more money than they know what to do with!
90%, yes I think I remember something as outrageous as that, Smith is just rehashing this stupidity, and yes again, you use words like idealistic and realistic I use fairness, but you are right we should be targeting the big companies making billions from us, Theresa May in her first speech as PM mentioned more welfare cuts she never said a word about going after the big major players, typical Tories, privatise everything by stealth.
Some are good, e.g. some people like zero hour contracts.
There should be no working conditions that can be used to exploit no matter if some like zero hour contracts.
Corbyn isn't just boring but inept, the Tories need to be held to account and Corbyn simply isn't capable.
Well if the best the Labour party can do is plastic Smith then give me Corbyn, if the best that Smith can do is attack Corbyns patriotism, not only plastic but see through plastic.
Gonnagle.
-
Yes, I couldn't believe it when Smith said Corbyn wasn't patriotic on Newsnight, and something about immigration being too high in some places. Who needs Farage?
-
Yes, I couldn't believe it when Smith said Corbyn wasn't patriotic on Newsnight, and something about immigration being too high in some places. Who needs Farage?
We are talking about a party that had a get immigration under control mug at the election.
-
I just find it bizarre that there are Labour party members who see Jeremy as anything other than a complete joke and serious electoral liability - haven't they noticed how popular he is with the Tories?
-
Dear Lapsed,
Aye! That's why your last Leader asked him to go, they know he is a threat, Corbyn knows that your boom and bust capitalism is a busted flush, they know that that Corbyn has the Tories sussed, your little government tactics of privatising everything is old news, Corbyn knows about your back door tactics to privatise the NHS, that is why when the man stands up in the house he is constantly heckled by your childish playground party.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Lapsed,
Aye! That's why your last Leader asked him to go, they know he is a threat, Corbyn knows that your boom and bust capitalism is a busted flush, they know that that Corbyn has the Tories sussed, your little government tactics of privatising everything is old news, Corbyn knows about your back door tactics to privatise the NHS, that is why when the man stands up in the house he is constantly heckled by your childish playground party.
Gonnagle.
Cameron was 'Demob Happy' when he made that statement - a rare case of a politician telling it how it is. Most Tories are more than happy to have Jeremy systematically trashing the opposition.
Personally I would like to see a functioning opposition to hold the government to account, but there is no sign of that at the moment and God knows what will happen to Labour at the next election.
-
And a piece by a shadow arts and culture minister
http://www.debbonaire.co.uk/why_i_have_no_confidence_in_mr_corbyn_s_leadership
Yes, I mentioned Thangam Debbonaire's scathing assessment of Corbyn's leadership in the 'New party leaders' thread. The impression given is that Corbyn is a great exponent of mild-mannered dithering. Ms Debbonaire has ten times Corbyn's balls, as she has shown by her fortitude after her cancer scare, and having to deal with the Corbynistas' ill-informed attacks on her even after she resumed work after medical treatment.
The impression of out-of-touch dithering from Corbyn was reinforced this morning on the radio via the impressions of Alan Johnson, who gave a very different impression to Corbyn's attitude to the Brexit matter. Far from 'going up and down the country, speaking vociferously on behalf of the Remain faction' (as Corbyn claimed to Andrew Marr), Alan Johnson says that Corbyn gave the impression that the whole affair was rather annoying and he wished it would go away so he and John McDonnall could witter on about socialism as it was in 1975, or better still tell us about his horticultural skills in growing broad beans.
Now is may be that Corbyn's broad-spectrum appeal to even a large number of mild-mannered middle-class people owes much to a huge revulsion of everything that Tony Blair brought to the Labour Party, but somebody with a bit more spunk than this is required to give socialism the kiss of life. And 80% of the elected party members know this only too well.
-
Personally I would like to see a functioning opposition to hold the government to account, but there is no sign of that at the moment and God knows what will happen to Labour at the next election.
Too right - but WTF are those 80% of Labour mps who opposed Corbyn doing to try and change things for the better? Electing Mr. O. Smith doesn't look like being the answer.
-
I think Labour are having a nervous breakdown post-Blair. I think this is inevitable after a big figure like that, especially in the light of Iraq. Half the MPs would like another Blair, whereas the membership are recoiling from Blair, so there is a big mess. Eventually, it will probably settle down, and I expect there are MPs in waiting, who are not prepared to stick their head above the parapet yet. Starmer seems a favourite, but he seems rather dull. Maybe Labour could do with dull. Also Jarvis. Anybody with a Blairite past is a non-starter.
-
Too right - but WTF are those 80% of Labour mps who opposed Corbyn doing to try and change things for the better? Electing Mr. O. Smith doesn't look like being the answer.
Maybe it will take an electoral 'wipe-out' to bring them to their senses, but where will that leave the country and could they ever recover?
-
I think Labour are having a nervous breakdown post-Blair. I think this is inevitable after a big figure like that, especially in the light of Iraq. Half the MPs would like another Blair, whereas the membership are recoiling from Blair, so there is a big mess. Eventually, it will probably settle down, and I expect there are MPs in waiting, who are not prepared to stick their head above the parapet yet. Starmer seems a favourite, but he seems rather dull. Maybe Labour could do with dull. Also Jarvis.
I think you have identified the problem.
Blair, made Labour electable by seizing the centre ground but screwed-up in a number of areas, notably Iraq. Therefore the very name of Blair virtually equates to Hitler in many Labour circles, so that any Labour politician who does not 'sign-up' to a Hard Left agenda is branded 'Blairite'.
Unfortunately for Labour, the electorate is not too keen on the Lefties, so all they have done is shoot themselves in the foot.
-
I'm not sure that you have to be 'hard left', but certainly, old Blairites are poison. But there are new people who are not from Blair's crop, e.g. Starmer, not particularly left-wing is he? But if Starmer put himself forward right now, he could get slaughtered in the general craziness, so he will wait. I bet he fancies it.
-
I'm not sure that you have to be 'hard left', but certainly, old Blairites are poison. But there are new people who are not from Blair's crop, e.g. Starmer, not particularly left-wing is he?
I'm sure there are a great many good people amongst Labour's MP's who could potentially form a successful government - IF the path to electability wasn't blocked by Corbyn.
-
Dear Lapsed,
Aye! That's why your last Leader asked him to go, they know he is a threat, Corbyn knows that your boom and bust capitalism is a busted flush,
I'm afraid not, boom and bust capitalism is just part of reality. That's the way the World is.
they know that that Corbyn has the Tories sussed, your little government tactics of privatising everything is old news, Corbyn knows about your back door tactics to privatise the NHS, that is why when the man stands up in the house he is constantly heckled by your childish playground party.
The real problem with Corbyn has nothing to do with his ideals, it's that he is just fucking useless.
-
What is with all this hard-left stuff?
Surely you can't be talking about Corbyn?
I mean, I know the mainstream rightwing media are trying to portray Jeremy Corbyn as some sort of hard-left, anti-capitalist Marxist extremist when the fact is he is a centre-left social democrat.
Although to be fair, I have noticed that there are more than just a few loony right wing, politically illiterate, posters on this thread!!
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36896944
Sounds more like Labour.
Of course if you tax more a group that really good at avoiding tax you don't really get more. The 50p actually resulted in less revenue last time it was introduced I think.
Owen Smith is lying though. As one of Corbynites said he hadn't been pushing for these types of issues for years but was just saying the things he thinks the voter want to hear at this point in the leadership race.
-
Dear Jakswan,
Nah!! someone will have to explain to me about robbing the rich to feed the poor, this is old Labour bullshit, tax the richest one per cent, won't they just move abroad, I am sure this crap has been discussed before.
These are good, they can be discussed, but surely this is something along the same lines as Corbyn wants, this whole Labour Leadership battle is bullshit, get behind Corbyn, he may be boring but Smith is Plastic, the Tories are the real enemy of this country not Corbyn.
Gonnagle.
Read the Greenwood article, Corbyn can't lead. He's a fart in the wind...
Yes, Smith is a bit like Miliband a revitalized zombie.
-
Yes, I couldn't believe it when Smith said Corbyn wasn't patriotic on Newsnight, and something about immigration being too high in some places. Who needs Farage?
What I found odd about his statements was that a lot of what he said went against or contradicted his pro-EU position. It was so blatant he was lying.
-
I think you have identified the problem.
Blair, made Labour electable by seizing the centre ground but screwed-up in a number of areas, notably Iraq. Therefore the very name of Blair virtually equates to Hitler in many Labour circles, so that any Labour politician who does not 'sign-up' to a Hard Left agenda is branded 'Blairite'.
Unfortunately for Labour, the electorate is not too keen on the Lefties, so all they have done is shoot themselves in the foot.
The real problem is that the party (and parties) have become too self satisfied over the years, and cliquey, and employed the Neo-Liberal project that has aliened their working class voters and that their blind indifference was bound to hit the buffs at some point.
What is still wrong is that many are trying to get back to what is was before instead of seeing the reality that is around them. You can't teach an old dog new tricks...
-
The real problem is that the party (and parties) have become too self satisfied over the years, and cliquey, and employed the Neo-Liberal project that has aliened their working class voters and that their blind indifference was bound to hit the buffs at some point.
What is still wrong is that many are trying to get back to what is was before instead of seeing the reality that is around them. You can't teach an old dog new tricks...
You are forever ranting about the Neo-Liberal project so what are you actually referring to Jack?
According to Wiki:
"Neoliberalism (or sometimes neo-liberalism) refers primarily to the 20th century resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. These include extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy.The implementation of neoliberal policies and the acceptance of neoliberal economic theories in the 1970s are seen by some academics as the root of financialization, with the financial crisis of 2007–08 as one of the ultimate results."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
So are these really the things that you object to or have you just latched-on to the catchphrase?
As a Brexiteer, I would have thought you would be rather in favour of free-trade?
-
What do folk expect the outcome of Tuesday's court hearing concerning the Labour NEC's decision to allow JC to stand automatically? Apparently, the judge is due to deliver their verdict this afternoon.
-
What do folk expect the outcome of Tuesday's court hearing concerning the Labour NEC's decision to allow JC to stand automatically? Apparently, the judge is due to deliver their verdict this afternoon.
I'm just totally bemused by the whole process, it's like a bizarre soap.
-
I'm just totally bemused by the whole process, it's like a bizarre soap.
Aye, lost any interest I had - and this as a lifetime supporter of Labour. Partner and I were talking about the fact that a significant proportion of Labour voters prefer Mrs May to the current leader. I'm not even sure if I'm not one of them. What a shambles.
-
I've seen Ed Miliband on TV recently a couple of times and he is so different to when he was Labour leader; he's relaxed, charming, articulate, clever, witty.....he might even make a good leader again.
-
I've seen Ed Miliband on TV recently a couple of times and he is so different to when he was Labour leader; he's relaxed, charming, articulate, clever, witty.....he might even make a good leader again.
It won't happen. In any case I doubt he would wish to subject himself to that all over again. He does, according to all acounts, possess all the qualities you list - but as ever the meedjah will out.
The country is in it's current predicament largely because of the craven and mendacious nature of most of our press, and the way it has misled the country over decades.
-
Dear Trent,
I'm not even sure if I'm not one of them.
Nooooooo!!
Dear Brownie,
he might even make a good leader again.
Noooooo!!
But Trent is right, it is a shambles, get behind Corbyn, okay he is no great leader, he doesn't have the soundbites or the eloquence in the commons but he knows the Tory way is a busted flush, their push for privatising everything will be our downfall ( this is the Tory mantra ) back Corbyn until ( as some suggest ) a new leader appears, it is most definitely not Smith.
The Tories are the problem, it is Corbyns policies you need to back, not the man, the country needs investment, not more austerity.
What we need on this forum is a short essay from Wigs on Keynes versus Monetarism ( Tories are Monetarism ) then you will see that investment is really what this country needs.
Gonnagle.
-
get behind Corbyn, okay he is no great leader,
Since this is for the position of leader of the Labour Party, I would have thought that is a significant negative and given the importance of the position as leader of HM Opposition, it should disqualify him.
he doesn't have the soundbites or the eloquence in the commons but he knows the Tory way is a busted flush
No point in knowing that if he is too ineffective to do anything about it.
-
No argument on the fact that we need more investment. I just do not think that Jeremy C is the man to make it happen. Don't get me wrong - I don't particularly disagree on many things he says. But if no-one is listening and if you are perceived to be a not very good leader the fgame is up. People are not going to vote for him in large enough numbers.
There was an interesting article in The Guardian by Owen Jones yesterday and although I don't always agree with him I'm afraid currently is analysis is correct on Corbyn and the Labour party.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/27/mass-membership-labour-social-movement-community
-
Dear Jeremyp,
Since this is for the position of leader of the Labour Party,
So we have a new thread, What makes a great leader, it is most certainly not plastic, plastic see through, plastic see through Tory/Farage lite Smith.
A quality of a great leader, someone who stands by his convictions.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
So we have a new thread, What makes a great leader, it is most certainly not plastic, plastic see through, plastic see through Tory/Farage lite Smith.
A quality of a great leader, someone who stands by his convictions.
Wrong. Corbyn stands by his convictions and he is a shit leader. A great leader is somebody who can lead other people. A great leader not only has a vision but can persuade others to buy into that vision and work towards achieving its goals.
Corbyn couldn't even command the loyalty of the cabinet he selected. He really needs to go. Who they replace him with is a problem because the best candidates were tainted by the New Labour period.
-
Dear Trent,
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/27/mass-membership-labour-social-movement-community
Excellent article and I can't see anything to argue against but I am struggling to see any argument against Corbyn, I do see the disconnect he talks about, middle class Labour voters ( I hate all this class talk ) not being able to connect with working class Labour voters.
Yes the Labour party does need to be out there talking to ordinary voters, I see Corbyn as the man to do this not Smith.
Gonnagle.
-
The basic thrust of the article was that Labour has got to stop acting less like a pressure group/social movement and somewhat more like a political party.
Jeremy C would be fine leading CND - but the Labour party - no.
I am also somewhat bemused by his Damascene conversion to party discipline - he has, after all, spent most of his time on the backbenches being totally undisciplined with regard to his own party.
-
But Trent is right, it is a shambles, get behind Corbyn, okay he is no great leader, he doesn't have the soundbites or the eloquence in the commons but he knows the Tory way is a busted flush, their push for privatising everything will be our downfall ( this is the Tory mantra ) back Corbyn until ( as some suggest ) a new leader appears, it is most definitely not Smith.
You think you know the "Tory way", whatever you think that means, is a busted flush, the thing is the rest of electorate don't agree since they just got back in. What labour need is a leader that does have the soundbites or the eloquence to convince the electorate, you just admitted Corbyn is lacking in this regard.
The Tories are the problem, it is Corbyns policies you need to back, not the man, the country needs investment, not more austerity.
This is what Miliband campaigned for and lost.
-
I thought that Miliband and Balls supported austerity, and said they would not reverse Tory cuts. In fact, my memory is that Balls suggested cutting winter fuel payments for some pensioners, don't have a link, however.
-
You think you know the "Tory way", whatever you think that means, is a busted flush, the thing is the rest of electorate don't agree since they just got back in. What labour need is a leader that does have the soundbites or the eloquence to convince the electorate, you just admitted Corbyn is lacking in this regard.
This is what Miliband campaigned for and lost.
Margaret Thatcher herself could put up for labour leadership and not get in. I'm afraid the majority of voters run on clockwork Jak and wont whirr for labour.....or should that be clang against the tories until 2025.
I think a coalition was rather fancied in 2015 but the science of voting them in is in it's infancy.
-
Dear Jakswan,
You think you know the "Tory way", whatever you think that means, is a busted flush, the thing is the rest of electorate don't agree since they just got back in. What labour need is a leader that does have the soundbites or the eloquence to convince the electorate, you just admitted Corbyn is lacking in this regard.
The Tory way, privatise everything, I think it is called "small government" nothing is safe, privatisation is slowly creeping into our NHS, Ronald McDonald hospices on NHS grounds, it's all their, the evidence is out there.
The rest of the electorate, you mean the very small majority which the government got in on.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Jakswan,
The Tory way, privatise everything, I think it is called "small government" nothing is safe, privatisation is slowly creeping into our NHS, Ronald McDonald hospices on NHS grounds, it's all their, the evidence is out there.
The rest of the electorate, you mean the very small majority which the government got in on.
Gonnagle.
That majority being based on 37% of those who voted.
-
The Tory way, privatise everything, I think it is called "small government" nothing is safe, privatisation is slowly creeping into our NHS, Ronald McDonald hospices on NHS grounds, it's all their, the evidence is out there.
I'm not a Tory but that is like claiming that Corbyn would nationalise everything, he has never said that, I'll judge people on what they say and do.
The rest of the electorate, you mean the very small majority which the government got in on.
It wasn't a majority, as NS has pointed out it was 37% of the vote. Your point doesn't refute mine, Corbyn needs to convince the electorate he is incapable by your own admission.
-
You are forever ranting about the Neo-Liberal project so what are you actually referring to Jack?
According to Wiki:
"Neoliberalism (or sometimes neo-liberalism) refers primarily to the 20th century resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. These include extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy.The implementation of neoliberal policies and the acceptance of neoliberal economic theories in the 1970s are seen by some academics as the root of financialization, with the financial crisis of 2007–08 as one of the ultimate results."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
So are these really the things that you object to or have you just latched-on to the catchphrase?
As a Brexiteer, I would have thought you would be rather in favour of free-trade?
"Free Trade" - Now who's latching on to phrases without knowing what they mean.
Yes, when I refer to Neo-Liberalism that is what I mean. And yes, I'm against them because they are not capitalism, free trade or market driven but amount to socialism or fascism (a few ruling the many) by the back door by using what people accept to achieve their aims. Similarly, political correctness ideas have been taken over by them to 'brainwash' the masses to do what they want - wolves in sheep clothing and all that. And...COP 21 I believe was sponsored by the coal and oil industries; why?
-
Dear Jeremyp,
So we have a new thread, What makes a great leader, it is most certainly not plastic, plastic see through, plastic see through Tory/Farage lite Smith.
A quality of a great leader, someone who stands by his convictions.
Gonnagle.
You won't find any either in Brussels.
-
Ronald McDonald hospices on NHS grounds, it's all their, the evidence is out there.
I'd really like to see the evidence that "Ronald McDonald" hospices are going to be a thing.
-
You won't find any either in Brussels.
Nigel Farage works in Brussels.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
I'm afraid not, boom and bust capitalism is just part of reality. That's the way the World is.
Sorry I missed this post from you, anyone else agree that boom and bust is just something we accept, part of reality, when the bankers go tits up we all have to accept it, this is just part of reality.
Gonnagle.
-
Nigel Farage works in Brussels.
I'm not aware that he's ever did any work there.
-
Nigel Farage works in Brussels.
The term Brussels doesn't mean the EP, it means the rest of them; the technocrats and all the other wankers. The EP is a façade for the pretence of looking like a democratic system - it's a joke.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
Sorry I missed this post from you, anyone else agree that boom and bust is just something we accept, part of reality, when the bankers go tits up we all have to accept it, this is just part of reality.
Gonnagle.
The question isn't whether we should accept boom and bust, as we will always have it, it is the issue of how bad the peaks and troughs should be allowed to reach. Our present financial Neo-Liberal ideology has a massive dose of arrogance in it which thinks it can stop these booms and busts and because of this blind spot they have when things do go tits up it is the people who pay for it and our feudal lords then carry on as usual as if nothing untoward has happened - total denial.
-
I'm not aware that he's ever did any work there.
That's a reflection of your capacities not his.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
Sorry I missed this post from you, anyone else agree that boom and bust is just something we accept, part of reality, when the bankers go tits up we all have to accept it, this is just part of reality.
Gonnagle.
I thought you meant Boom and Bust in the Gordon Brown sense. The economy will always have long periods of growth interspersed with shocks. It's been happening since people started recording these things.
-
I'm not aware that he's ever did any work there.
It takes a lot of effort to fill in your expenses claim
-
The term Brussels doesn't mean the EP, it means the rest of them; the technocrats and all the other wankers. The EP is a façade for the pretence of looking like a democratic system - it's a joke.
Goal post moving. You forgot about Farage so now you are trying to back track.
-
Goal post moving. You forgot about Farage so now you are trying to back track.
Just clarifying what I meant.
-
Just clarifying what I meant.
You mean you forgot about Farage so now you are trying to backtrack.
-
You mean you forgot about Farage so now you are trying to backtrack.
See previous post.
-
"Free Trade" - Now who's latching on to phrases without knowing what they mean.
Yes, when I refer to Neo-Liberalism that is what I mean. And yes, I'm against them because they are not capitalism, free trade or market driven but amount to socialism or fascism (a few ruling the many) by the back door by using what people accept to achieve their aims. Similarly, political correctness ideas have been taken over by them to 'brainwash' the masses to do what they want - wolves in sheep clothing and all that. And...COP 21 I believe was sponsored by the coal and oil industries; why?
I'd certainly agree that 'Free Trade' is a term that may have many meanings depending on your pov. Most people, for example, wouldn't want to give the Chinese the freedom to dump their surplus steel on the UK market, but generally, I would say that 'Free Trade' should mean removing as many tariff barriers as possible
It's a complicated area, but I think that would be pretty much the intention of those you call the 'Neo-Liberals'.
So, having clarified my position as far as possible, I totally fail to see how this any of this could amount to 'Socialism or Fascism' or how 'Political Correctness' or Climate change would be relevant?
-
Most people, for example, wouldn't want to give the Chinese the freedom to dump their surplus steel on the UK market,
The people in British companies that depend on steel as a raw material would love their steel to be much cheaper, especially if they manufacture products that compete with the products of other companies in countries that do allow cheap Chinese steel in. That's probably why the UK government vetoed EU attempts to stop the Chinese from dumping steel in EU countries.
Anybody who thinks Brexit will help us save the steel industry is deluded. This will probably finish it off.
-
I'd certainly agree that 'Free Trade' is a term that may have many meanings depending on your pov. Most people, for example, wouldn't want to give the Chinese the freedom to dump their surplus steel on the UK market, but generally, I would say that 'Free Trade' should mean removing as many tariff barriers as possible
It's a complicated area, but I think that would be pretty much the intention of those you call the 'Neo-Liberals'.
So, having clarified my position as far as possible, I totally fail to see how this any of this could amount to 'Socialism or Fascism' or how 'Political Correctness' or Climate change would be relevant?
You need to look at the bigger picture. The phrase "Wolves in sheep's clothing" should have given you a big clue.
What is the basic make up of socialism and fascism? When you answer that you'll be on your way to understanding what I'm saying.
-
First Labour Hustings as JC goes up against OS.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV94oTdcs-A
-
Dear Jakswan,
Thanks for the link, very interesting debate but it just reinforces my opinion of Smith, Corbyn was the one who came across as the most honest, Smith's argument that Corbyn doesn't appeal to all Labour supporters, which Labour supporters would they be, only ones I can think of are those still stuck in old Blairite ways, a kind of Torylite Labour supporter.
If I had to vote for any of those two gentlemen it would be Corbyn, he seems the more honest, down to earth and I do like his ten point manifesto, apart from no 8, what is a progressive tax system?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-kGgIyzDaM
This is how you put the country back on its feet, investment, not austerity.
Gonnagle.
-
apart from no 8, what is a progressive tax system?
Gonnagle.
It's one where everyone's tax burden is fair and equitable unless you are a Glaswegian named Gonnagle when you pay three times as much as anyone else.
-
Smith's argument that Corbyn doesn't appeal to all Labour supporters, which Labour supporters would they be,
The ones that win elections.
-
With the result due at middday today, one wonders whether the media's concentration on Corbyn, as most likely to win right from the start of the campaign, has meant that Owen Smith's campaign has been under reported. Even here in Wales, whenever the news reports have turned to the leadership election, Smith and his thoughts have often come second on the reporting ladder and often for less time than Corbyn.
Whatever the outcome, can we now get back to having a vaguely proper opposition - which we sort of had prior to the 2015 G.E. and Labour leadership campaigns?
-
This is how you put the country back on its feet, investment, not austerity.
Whilst I'd agree in principle, Gonners, one can'y invest if one hasn't got the money in the first place, and borrowing to invest isn't necessarily the cure-all some would like us to believe.
-
Anybody who thinks Brexit will help us save the steel industry is deluded. This will probably finish it off.
It was all-but finished off long before the argues over Brexit started in earnest. The only steel industry we have worth speaking about is very high quality stuff that has very specific uses.
-
Dear Hope,
Whilst I'd agree in principle, Gonners, one can'y invest if one hasn't got the money in the first place, and borrowing to invest isn't necessarily the cure-all some would like us to believe.
I am constantly told ( media, internet, papers, news ) that we are the fifth richest country in the world, add to that, if we scrap Trident ( a useless big stick ) we would have plenty of money to invest in what really matters, people for instance, education, a properly funded health service.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Hope,
I am constantly told ( media, internet, papers, news ) that we are the fifth richest country in the world, add to that, if we scrap Trident ( a useless big stick ) we would have plenty of money to invest in what really matters, people for instance, education, a properly funded health service.
Gonnagle.
..although if we use Trident to blow up Buckfast Abbey and it's production plant, then the pressure on health spending in the west of Scotland would fall dramatically! ;)
-
There's a whole fistful of things we could save heaps of money on, and without compromising our defence: stop bombing people, and then spending billions on re-constructing; eliminating tax fraud and tax dodging - huge, that. Proper use of public money by eliminating waste, etc.
-
It was all-but finished off long before the argues over Brexit started in earnest.
Errr yes and my post makes the claim that it will no longer be "all but" finished off, it will be actually finished off.
-
There's a whole fistful of things we could save heaps of money on, and without compromising our defence: stop bombing people, and then spending billions on re-constructing; eliminating tax fraud and tax dodging - huge, that. Proper use of public money by eliminating waste, etc.
You make it sound so easy. Of that list, only stopping bombing people and reconstructing is actually easy. If it were so easy to eliminate tax fraud and waste, there wouldn't be any tax fraud and waste.
Oh, and if we stopped bombing people and then reconstructing, the people who make bombs and reconstruct would be out on the street. The reason to stop bombing people is because it kills them.
-
The people in British companies that depend on steel as a raw material would love their steel to be much cheaper, especially if they manufacture products that compete with the products of other companies in countries that do allow cheap Chinese steel in. That's probably why the UK government vetoed EU attempts to stop the Chinese from dumping steel in EU countries.
Anybody who thinks Brexit will help us save the steel industry is deluded. This will probably finish it off.
It may, it may not. Pure speculation; unless you can suggest why it would be finished off.
-
The people in British companies that depend on steel as a raw material would love their steel to be much cheaper, especially if they manufacture products that compete with the products of other companies in countries that do allow cheap Chinese steel in. That's probably why the UK government vetoed EU attempts to stop the Chinese from dumping steel in EU countries.
Anybody who thinks Brexit will help us save the steel industry is deluded. This will probably finish it off.
Generally users of steel would always like prices to be lower (who wouldn't), but if we open the door to countries like China 'dumping' their surplus steel on us, that would be likely to kill-off our own manufacturers (who can compete with steel that is sold for less than cost?) - so when China have got rid of there excess stock, prices will rise, and we will have lost the capacity to make our own.
Bad news for all UK industry.
-
There's a whole fistful of things we could save heaps of money on, and without compromising our defence: stop bombing people, and then spending billions on re-constructing; eliminating tax fraud and tax dodging - huge, that. Proper use of public money by eliminating waste, etc.
Not to mention the excessive amount of money spent on political hangers-on - even politicians in same cases - think about the attempts over the past 10-odd years to reduce the number of seats in the Commons or revamp the HoL.
-
So no comments on Corbyn's re-election and what this means for Labour's future structure?
When Corbyn said he wants to wipe the slate clean I think he meant of all the centralists in the PLP.
One ray of hope for Labour is the Brexit divisions in the Tory party. As May starts to set some of the broad outlines of the negotiations things could hot up, and we have already seen glimmers of differing views from the players involved.
-
So no comments on Corbyn's re-election and what this means for Labour's future structure?
When Corbyn said he wants to wipe the slate clean I think he meant of all the centralists in the PLP.
One ray of hope for Labour is the Brexit divisions in the Tory party. As May starts to set some of the broad outlines of the negotiations things could hot up, and we have already seen glimmers of differing views from the players involved.
I am sure that Corbyn's re-election will be a great relief to May - all she has to worry about now is clearing-up the mess that you lot created.
-
I am sure that Corbyn's re-election will be a great relief to May - all she has to worry about now is clearing-up the mess that you lot created.
Which she contributed to according to Cameron's press secretary. I don't Smith have been any better Labour. The first casualty of this may be Kezia Dugdale
-
I am sure that Corbyn's re-election will be a great relief to May - all she has to worry about now is clearing-up the mess that you lot created.
Why is May pleased with Corbyn's re-election?
-
Which she contributed to according to Cameron's press secretary. I don't Smith have been any better Labour. The first casualty of this may be Kezia Dugdale
And many more to follow!
Labour have turned into a Scooby Doo farce!!!
-
It appears no debate on Brexit at the Labour Party Conference, given anything you do will be seen in the light if Brexit, and their one small chance is to take a position that might split the Tories, think this is foolish
-
Why is May pleased with Corbyn's re-election?
Because it's 1980 all over again and she's Maggie! (shame about that terrible Brexit mess that needs clearing-up)
-
Which she contributed to according to Cameron's press secretary. I don't Smith have been any better Labour. The first casualty of this may be Kezia Dugdale
Who knows? whatever the truth May played her cards pretty well.
-
Dear Lapsed,
Sorry old son :P I just can't resist, all she has to worry about is Junior doctors, all she has to worry about is a NHS in crisis, all she has to worry about is Boris keeping his gob shut, all she has to worry about is staying in bed with the Yanks, all she has to worry about is not investing in areas which sorely need it, all she has to worry about is the SNP carrying out Camerons legacy, what she has to worry about is splits in her own party and finally, what she has to worry about is a country now watching her every move, brexit has sparked a new interest in politics, she has to be very careful or UKIP, Labour, SNP and the Greens will make gains from her mistakes, we do live in very interesting times. :o
What Mr Corbyn needs to do is just sit back, watch the Tories shoot themselves in the foot time and time again.
Gonnagle.
-
Because it's 1980 all over again and she's Maggie! (shame about that terrible Brexit mess that needs clearing-up)
1980 Maggie was screwed. The SDP contributed but it was the Falklands wot won it in 83. And that mess bseems in part her fault, though that's arguably true for Maggie and the Falklands.
-
Dear Lapsed,
Sorry old son :P I just can't resist, all she has to worry about is Junior doctors, all she has to worry about is a NHS in crisis, all she has to worry about is Boris keeping his gob shut, all she has to worry about is staying in bed with the Yanks, all she has to worry about is not investing in areas which sorely need it, all she has to worry about is the SNP carrying out Camerons legacy, what she has to worry about is splits in her own party and finally, what she has to worry about is a country now watching her every move, brexit has sparked a new interest in politics, she has to be very careful or UKIP, Labour, SNP and the Greens will make gains from her mistakes, we do live in very interesting times. :o
What Mr Corbyn needs to do is just sit back, watch the Tories shoot themselves in the foot time and time again.
Gonnagle.
if Corbyn just sits back, he won't have a party
-
Who knows? whatever the truth May played her cards pretty well.
so if she did that to become PM you support that her personal ambition is more important than what you think will ruin the country.
-
1980 Maggie was screwed. The SDP contributed but it was the Falklands wot won it in 83. And that mess bseems in part her fault, though that's arguably true for Maggie and the Falklands.
We may yet see SDP II - but Labour are buggered either way. The Brexit mud won't stick, it's just a bitter 'Has-Been' trying to cash in. She will stand or fall on how she handles Brexit.
We all need her to succeed.
-
We may yet see SDP II - but Labour are buggered either way. The Brexit mud won't stick, it's just a bitter 'Has-Been' trying to cash in. She will stand or fall on how she handles Brexit.
We all need her to succeed.
I am not dealing with whether the 'mud' will stick but anyone who saw the referendum saw that she was not there. If you think Corbyn should have domr more, then from a personal view surely that applies to May?
-
so if she did that to become PM you support that her personal ambition is more important than what you think will ruin the country.
Whatever your perspective, you can't actually believe that she swung the vote for Leave! She simply had the political savvy to not to make enemies.
-
I am not dealing with whether the 'mud' will stick but anyone who saw the referendum saw that she was not there. If you think Corbyn should have domr more, then from a personal view surely that applies to May?
Corbyn was the leader of the opposition for Gods sake! Assuming that he actually wanted a Remain vote, of course he should have been campaigning in a highly visible way. May was just a minister who did her bit.
-
Corbyn was the leader of the opposition for Gods sake! Assuming that he actually wanted a Remain vote, of course he should have been campaigning in a highly visible way. May was just a minister who did her bit.
it was a free vote from that view. He campaigned in a visible way. She didn't
-
Whatever your perspective, you can't actually believe that she swung the vote for Leave! She simply had the political savvy to not to make enemies.
Strawman there as I didn't say she did. Just if there is a suspicion that she played it, then were it true it doesn't reflect well on her.
-
it was a free vote from that view. He campaigned in a visible way. She didn't
That is a possibility, but it's already yesterdays news.
-
Strawman there as I didn't say she did. Just if there is a suspicion that she played it, then were it true it doesn't reflect well on her.
No dry stalks of cereal plants involved at all. The implication was that May had somehow influenced to vote towards Leave which was clearly ridiculous.
-
That is a possibility, but it's already yesterdays news.
you are missing the point here, I'm not talking about what the impact in the electorate, I'm talking about your judgement of her. You seem to be happy if she deliberately hid for the benefit of her personal ambitions
-
No dry stalks of cereal plants involved at all. The implication was that May had somehow influenced to vote towards Leave which was clearly ridiculous.
More straw. The implication is that she chose one view and then his to help her own career in the case of either result.
-
you are missing the point here, I'm not talking about what the impact in the electorate, I'm talking about your judgement of her. You seem to be happy if she deliberately hid for the benefit of her personal ambitions
If we could see into the heart of others how simple life would be! . . . Maybe?
May is a politician, she plays the game of politics and she won. In that respect she is no different to Salmond or Sturgeon.
-
More straw. The implication is that she chose one view and then his to help her own career in the case of either result.
She did what she needed to do and she did so without making enemies, or at least important enemies.
All that has changed is that someone has 'cashed-in' on their memoirs.
-
Generally users of steel would always like prices to be lower (who wouldn't), but if we open the door to countries like China 'dumping' their surplus steel on us, that would be likely to kill-off our own manufacturers (who can compete with steel that is sold for less than cost?) - so when China have got rid of there excess stock, prices will rise, and we will have lost the capacity to make our own.
But our steel industry wasn't competitive even before the Chinese started dumping cheap steel on us.
Bad news for all UK industry.
No. There are other places to get steel from.
-
He campaigned in a visible way. She didn't
Did he? I don't recall anything he did in the campaign.
-
Did he? I don't recall anything he did in the campaign.
jeremy, NS is correct: JC did campaign more visibly than TM. Often it was in a bumbling manner that involved getting part way through an endorsement before pausing to check his notes as to what he was endorsing. Many folk I know felt that this was perhaps the most effective way of campaigning for Brexit of any of the campaigners.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
Did he? I don't recall anything he did in the campaign.
I remember his campaigning but it was not covered enough by the media, he was not newsworthy, the media preferred to focus on the lies from both sides of the divide.
I have to say I like this Corbyn fellow, he seems to be honest, down to earth and focus's on the important issue's and he is no friend of the media, and there in lies an important lesson for me, I need to focus on reading between the lines, to remember not to take everything reported in the media at face value.
Gonnagle.
-
Did he? I don't recall anything he did in the campaign.
Well he managed to give the EU 7/10 on TV. Don't get me wrong it was not the campaign of dreams but it was fairly constant. In not wanting to be seen campaigning with Tories he reduced the possibilities of appearances at the more obvious events. The difference here is that I can't nhelp but think that May's was a personal political decision to position herself rather than anything else.
-
jeremy, NS is correct: JC did campaign more visibly than TM. Often it was in a bumbling manner that involved getting part way through an endorsement before pausing to check his notes as to what he was endorsing. Many folk I know felt that this was perhaps the most effective way of campaigning for Brexit of any of the campaigners.
Yes, and he was leader of the opposition! He needed to do a bit more than mutter a few notes. He is on record as saying that "he had mixed feelings on the EU" so he was never going to campaign passionately. (the phrase 'waste of space' springs to mind)
-
Well he managed to give the EU 7/10 on TV. Don't get me wrong it was not the campaign of dreams but it was fairly constant. In not wanting to be seen campaigning with Tories he reduced the possibilities of appearances at the more obvious events. The difference here is that I can't nhelp but think that May's was a personal political decision to position herself rather than anything else.
History will judge May on one thing and one thing only - how well she sorts out the Brexit mess.
-
Yes, and he was leader of the opposition! He needed to do a bit more than mutter a few notes. He is on record as saying that "he had mixed feelings on the EU" so he was never going to campaign passionately. (the phrase 'waste of space' springs to mind)
But it wasn't done simply in party political basis and surely if he was lukewarm then he should say that.
-
History will judge May on one thing and one thing only - how well she sorts out the Brexit mess.
even though she may have been happy for it to come about? This history boy needs to learn some nuance
-
But it wasn't done simply in party political basis and surely if he was lukewarm then he should say that.
He is on record as making several 'lukewarm' statements about the EU, yet he went through the motions of campaigning.
The man is a disgrace.
-
He is on record as making several 'lukewarm' statements about the EU, yet he went through the motions of campaigning.
The man is a disgrace.
If you are lukewarm about something surely you should that. As for campaigning then surely if in balance you think something is right then you can campaign for it?
I'm far from Jezza's biggest fan but castigating someone for honesty as opposed to lying seems odd.
-
If you are lukewarm about something surely you should that. As for campaigning then surely if in balance you think something is right then you can campaign for it?
I'm far from Jezza's biggest fan but castigating someone for honesty as opposed to lying seems odd.
If he had been honest, he would have declared himself neutral and let someone else head the Labour campaign - but that would have weakened his leadership so I'm guessing that that might have been at the back of his mind.
-
If he had been honest, he would have declared himself neutral and let someone else head the Labour campaign - but that would have weakened his leadership so I'm guessing that that might have been at the back of his mind.
It is strange to contrast your characterization of Teresa May "She did what she had to do" with that of Mr Corbyn's "If he had been honest".
I suspect, just a little bit of bias going on here.
-
If he had been honest, he would have declared himself neutral and let someone else head the Labour campaign - but that would have weakened his leadership so I'm guessing that that might have been at the back of his mind.
But he wasn't neutral, he was in favour of it on balance. I sincerely doubt he was worried about his leadership when after all even after the vote, he's just walked an election.
-
Dear Lapsed,
At the back of his mind he was probably thinking, the Tories are going to far with their austerity nonsense and now they have landed me with this brexit fiasco, something that the country could have avoided if they had a stronger leader, the man had to go out and campaign for something that could have been sorted out from within the EU.
But no, UKIP flashed its false teeth and some within Mr Cameron's own party were blowing raspberries at him, he knee jerked, and now he is off sunning himself.
The country suffers because of a weak government, unable or not willing to stand up to the fat cats that Jack Knave tell us run the EU.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Lapsed,
At the back of his mind he was probably thinking, the Tories are going to far with their austerity nonsense and now they have landed me with this brexit fiasco, something that the country could have avoided if they had a stronger leader, the man had to go out and campaign for something that could have been sorted out from within the EU.
But no, UKIP flashed its false teeth and some within Mr Cameron's own party were blowing raspberries at him, he knee jerked, and now he is off sunning himself.
The country suffers because of a weak government, unable or not willing to stand up to the fat cats that Jack Knave tell us run the EU.
Gonnagle.
Labour have two big problems:
1/ https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/10/britains-political-tribes-hinder-labour-chances-of-winning-coalition which can be summarised as 'Voters don't want a Lefty government'.
and
2/ Traditional Labour voters followed UKIP into the Brexit camp.
Suddenly the Tories look like the party of sanity and if Saint Theresa can work a few minor miracles Labour could be in the wilderness for a very long time.
-
Dear Lapsed,
If we are still using 20th century definitions, right, left, centre, then yes Mr Corbyn is Leftwing, but the survey ( for me ) just shows me how fed up voters are with old politics, and this shone through in all the debates I witnessed on the telly, voters fed up with not being given a straight answer.
And as Mrs May constantly chips away at what is great about this country, the NHS, the Junior Doctors strike for instance, voters will see through Tory politics, but I do see a hill that Mr Corbyn has to climb to persuade voters away from UKIP policies, but just like the Tories, UKIP are also famous for foot shooting, when the Brexiteers see that their old England is not returning, they might just vote for the only person talking sense.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Lapsed,
If we are still using 20th century definitions, right, left, centre, then yes Mr Corbyn is Leftwing, but the survey ( for me ) just shows me how fed up voters are with old politics, and this shone through in all the debates I witnessed on the telly, voters fed up with not being given a straight answer.
And as Mrs May constantly chips away at what is great about this country, the NHS, the Junior Doctors strike for instance, voters will see through Tory politics, but I do see a hill that Mr Corbyn has to climb to persuade voters away from UKIP policies, but just like the Tories, UKIP are also famous for foot shooting, when the Brexiteers see that their old England is not returning, they might just vote for the only person talking sense.
Gonnagle.
I think most of the Brexit camp scared themselves shit-less when they won and are now trying to avoid blame by damage limitation. They will be united behind May for a long as she is succeeding or at least until negotiations totally screw-up. If she succeeds she will be the nations saviour and the Tories will be unassailable. If she fails it's all bets off.
-
I think most of the Brexit camp scared themselves shit-less when they won and are now trying to avoid blame by damage limitation. They will be united behind May for a long as she is succeeding or at least until negotiations totally screw-up. If she succeeds she will be the nations saviour and the Tories will be unassailable. If she fails it's all bets off.
is that why you have the Dangerous Brothers, Liam and Boris mouthing off?
-
is that why you have the Dangerous Brothers, Liam and Boris mouthing off?
What is that saying about keeping your friends close but your enemies closer?
-
What is that saying about keeping your friends close but your enemies closer?
and keep your enemies in the position to define Brexit
-
I think most of the Brexit camp scared themselves shit-less when they won and are now trying to avoid blame by damage limitation. They will be united behind May for a long as she is succeeding or at least until negotiations totally screw-up. If she succeeds she will be the nations saviour and the Tories will be unassailable. If she fails it's all bets off.
What do you define as success?
-
and keep your enemies in the position to define Brexit
I would imagine that they might make useful pawns to sacrifice if things start to go wrong.
-
What do you define as success?
Tariff free access to the single market for all sectors including financial. I suspect that we will have to agree to some free movement of labour but will probably be allowed to exclude criminals. (Lets face it we need most of the migrants)
It almost certainly won't satisfy UKIP but my guess is that most of the country is ready for stability .
-
Tariff free access to the single market for all sectors including financial. I suspect that we will have to agree to some free movement of labour but will probably be allowed to exclude criminals. (Lets face it we need most of the migrants)
It almost certainly won't satisfy UKIP but my guess is that most of the country is ready for stability .
Would be good if as PM she said that, or stopped ministers from backing the opposite position, or do you just think she has a cunning plan (one that gives her more power than a PM has)?
-
It appears no debate on Brexit at the Labour Party Conference, given anything you do will be seen in the light if Brexit, and their one small chance is to take a position that might split the Tories, think this is foolish
Some think that Brexit will get the Tories anyway, so just leave them to bash themselves up.
-
Because it's 1980 all over again and she's Maggie! (shame about that terrible Brexit mess that needs clearing-up)
The EU debate in the Tories finally brought her down and the Brexit issue may bring May down.
-
Yes, and he was leader of the opposition! He needed to do a bit more than mutter a few notes. He is on record as saying that "he had mixed feelings on the EU" so he was never going to campaign passionately. (the phrase 'waste of space' springs to mind)
But the media generally followed the two main groups of for and against. Corbyn refused to be on the same platform as Cameron and co. And rightly so, after Scots referendum effect. He did his bit but the PLP weren't happy that it wasn't with the official Remain term.
-
If he had been honest, he would have declared himself neutral and let someone else head the Labour campaign - but that would have weakened his leadership so I'm guessing that that might have been at the back of his mind.
He didn't head the Labours campaign! Johnson did.
-
I would imagine that they might make useful pawns to sacrifice if things start to go wrong.
That's the way to play the game!