Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Rogstanley]

7 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Yes that is exactly what Corbyn said and that was the whole crux of the argument and it has been entirely dispelled. 

Well yes, that is what Corbyn said. Here's a video of him saying it.

 

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2017/jun/18/empty-properties-should-be-seized-in-emergencies-says-corbyn-video

 

He's quite clear to point out that in an emergency situation a range of measures, which might include requisitioning empty homes, could be used to house people who would otherwise be homeless.

 

That's vastly different to having "no respect for property rights" as well you know. You're obviously trying to imply Corbyn has said he'll just go around stealing rich people's houses "on a whim" but that's just not true is it, because he hasn't said anything of the sort. The exaggeration is unnecessary and only serves to weaken the point being made.

 

I don't agree with requisitioning homes myself, but can certainly sympathise with the idea, especially given a lot of these properties are left empty for years, many owned by people who have never even visited the UK. The idea that the financial investment of someone who has never been here is more important than somebody's life is an odd one to day the least, but maybe that's me just not understanding "British values" again.

[Innovindil]

2 hours ago, toddybad said:

I need a tame tory to tell me it's all going to be okay

 

Brexit blamed as record number of EU nurses give up on Britain

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/apr/25/brexit-blamed-record-number-eu-nurses-give-up-britain?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

 

[Buce]

2 hours ago, toddybad said:

I need a tame tory to tell me it's all going to be okay

 

Brexit blamed as record number of EU nurses give up on Britain

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/apr/25/brexit-blamed-record-number-eu-nurses-give-up-britain?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

 

They’re too busy idolising Trump at present but I’m sure one will be along shortly to tell us that Corbyn hates Jewish doctors or something. 

 

Just don’t expect an actual answer. 

[Guest MattP]

51 minutes ago, Buce said:

They’re too busy idolising Trump at present but I’m sure one will be along shortly to tell us that Corbyn hates Jewish doctors or something. 

 

Just don’t expect an actual answer. 

Ironic that given I never got a reply to this.

 

On 18/04/2018 at 18:50, Buce said:

Tbf, I don't think it was aimed at you, even though it was you he quoted.

 

There are a couple of posters on here that support and defend Trump in pretty much everything he does.

 

On 18/04/2018 at 19:17, MattP said:

Who are they? I remember Claridge was a mild fan but apart from him I don't think there is a single Trump supporter in here, let alone anyone that defends and supports almost everything he does.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Webbo]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

Ironic that given I never got a reply to this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He means me.

[Guest MattP]

8 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Corbyn's official facebook page has the following statement:

 

So what exactly is the charge against him here, that he is receptive of and responsive to lobbyists but won't be dictated to by them? 

 

I find your hard on for any negative press about Corbyn a bit odd.  Especially on an issue like this where he's being accused of failing to deal with prejudice within his party adequately which is a serious issue - especially if the accusations from some corners of deliberate inaction rather than sluggish incompetence are true - but one that comes at a time where the incumbent government appear guilty of actively taking deliberate actions to enforce the marginalisation and wrongful deportation of minorities which to my mind is a bit more serious than being incompetent at dealing with the words and social media posts of people with relatively little public influence and no control over the civil service.

Do you really think it's upto Corbyn to decide whether this meeting was a productive one? What next? It's apto Theresa May to decide whether a meeting with the windrush immigrants was productive? It's upto the dole office to decide whether a meeting with a benefit claimant was productive?

 

Heres's the lowdown on the meeting from the Jewish Chronicle - no doubt it's just "right wing smears" again to anyone in the cult but it's worth a read.

Quote

The mood music, to coin a phrase, in advance of tonight’s meeting between Jeremy Corbyn and Jewish community representatives was not good. It could hardly have been, when the meeting only came about because of an unprecedented demonstration last month in Parliament Square.

This afternoon, Mr Corbyn published a decent enough apology in the Evening Standard, in which he went further than ever before in appearing to have some grasp of the issues (even though it contained the odd assertion that anti-Zionism is not antisemitic).

But Mr Corbyn's years of giving support to antisemites mean that his words alone are meaningless. He will be judged only on actions.

Which is why today’s meeting was so important.

Had he offered some substance, it would have dispelled the idea that his behaviour and words over the past few weeks have only been about neutralising a damaging political issue rather than a genuine desire to grapple with a deep-seated problem for the hard left.

Because Mr Corbyn’s own political career is critical to this. He has allied with antisemities in Hamas (describing them as being dedicated to social and political justice); he has given money to a Holocaust denier, Paul Eisen; he has worked for Press TV. The list goes on. 

So the real question about today’s meeting was whether Mr Corbyn would offer real substance – whether he would commit to genuine action and, perhaps even more important, show that he was open to the suggestion that he could himself learn. Whether, to be blunt, he could accept that there is a valid issue as to how he might himself have contributed to the hard left’s issue with antisemitism.

It is clear from the formal statements from the Board of Deputies and Jewish Leadership Council after the meeting that this was not a genuine attempt to tackle antisemitism but rather a meeting designed to solve a political problem – that Labour is now viewed as having an issue with antisemitism.

But formal statements are only so useful. I have now pieced together much of what went on in the lengthy (well over an hour) meeting. And the picture is even more damning.

The meeting opened with Jonathan Arkush, President of the Board of Deputies, raising the community’s key points, to which Mr Corbyn gave a warm response. “He was warm and personable,” according to one account of the meeting.

“But when it came to proposals for concrete action there was absolutely nothing. Nothing. The bottom line is that we got nothing from the meeting. Not a thing.”

Another source said that the opening of the meeting set the tone, with the party’s representatives – Jennie Formby and Seumas Milne - entirely concerned with process.

After Mr Corbyn’s opening remarks, he passed over to Ms Formby, the new Labour Party General Secretary, who gave a “day by day account of the processes she followed and the bits of paper she has signed”.

As one source present at the meeting put it: “They think it’s all about process, that process is all that matters. Process is what they offer and it’s the excuse they give why they can’t do anything”.

Jonathan Goldstein of the JLC told Mr Corbyn that his parents had attended their first ever demonstration last month in Parliament Square. When they were nearby they were jeered by supporters of the Labour leader. “Why won’t you stop these people?”, Mr Goldstein demanded.

“It’s not in my name”, Mr Corbyn replied.

“So why are you not saying that loud and clear, with the passion you have shown over the Windrush scandal?”, Mr Goldstein responded.

Mr Corbyn is said to have shrugged.

When Mr Arkush raised the issue of appointing an independent ombudsman to deal with allegations, the Labour leader said he did not have the authority to take such action.

As a source put it: “Every time you ask him to do something he finds an excuse and relies on process.”

Tellingly, Mark Gardner of the Community Security Trust raised Mr Corbyn’s friendliness towards Hamas and Hezbollah, pointing out that the reason Jewish buildings in the UK have long had to have such severe security measures is that in 1994 Hezbollah had blown up the AMIA centre in Argentina. “You have”, Mr Corbyn was told directly, “done nothing to deal with Muslim antisemitism.”

In response, Mr Corbyn again simply “shrugged it off.”

Finally, the issue of Chris Williamson was raised. The Labour MP is scheduled to appear on a platform with Jackie Walker, currently suspended by the Labour Party. When asked if he would order Mr Williamson not to go ahead, Mr Corbyn said he had no power to do so. “But you can simply tell him that he mustn’t do it”, he was told.

This is the crux of it. Hiding behind procedural excuses gives the game away. If Mr Corbyn was serious about tackling antisemites he would tell Mr Williamson that if he goes ahead with the meeting with Ms Walker then Mr Corbyn will denounce him for it.

But you and I both know he would never, ever do that.

Which says everything.

 

 

I find it hard you, a clearly intelligent, pro European liberal - would try and defend everything Corbyn does.

[Buce]

11 minutes ago, MattP said:

Ironic that given I never got a reply to this.

 

 

 

I don't need the aggro, mate.

 

People can see for themselves who I mean.

 

 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Do you really think it's upto Corbyn to decide whether this meeting was a productive one? What next? It's apto Theresa May to decide whether a meeting with the windrush immigrants was productive? It's upto the dole office to decide whether a meeting with a benefit claimant was productive?

 

Heres's the lowdown on the meeting from the Jewish Chronicle - no doubt it's just "right wing smears" again to anyone in the cult but it's worth a read.

 

I find it hard you, a clearly intelligent, pro European liberal - would try and defend everything Corbyn does.

Its utterly bizarre that intelligent people can muster support for this vile man. He clearly has a huge cultural problem within the party, this is a culture that inherently  lives deep within the fundamentals of far left extremists. Make no mistake these people are far left extremists, they are as dangerous to this country as the likes of the BNP, Britain First and all the other crackpot parties. Corbyn gets passionately upset over Windrush but doesn't show the same passion towards Anti-Semite rape threats in his own party. He calls Hamas and Hezbollah friends, yet supports call for the president of our biggest trading partner to be barred from the country. He wont condemn Venuzela, he wont condemn Russia, he wont condemn Iran.

 

I can not understand why people have such an affinity to Corbyn, he clearly lies (a lot! despite his honest politics bollocks), you can see when he gets asked a question he doesn't like or, something bad gets pointed out to him he gets very angry and defensive. He really is the kind of man who would make an excellent 'dear leader' in some 3rd rate South American nation, where him and McDonnell would kill anyone who denounces him. Its absolutely bizarre! 

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

4 hours ago, toddybad said:

I need a tame tory to tell me it's all going to be okay

 

Brexit blamed as record number of EU nurses give up on Britain

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/apr/25/brexit-blamed-record-number-eu-nurses-give-up-britain?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

 

Ironically, it was mentioned in a Windrush debate yesterday (C4 News?) that the UK has an ongoing recruitment drive in Jamaica - seeking to recruit lots of qualified Jamaican nurses.

Don't suppose the Windrush fiasco will help. I'm sure that higher pay will still attract some, but the idea that our immigration policy will treat them like scum if they stay too long might put some off.

 

If we want to have fewer European workers in this country, might it not be a good idea to fund the training and employment of British nurses properly? Instead of using the wage differential to nick qualified Jamaican nurses on the cheap - to replace the qualified European nurses that we nicked on the cheap but are now alienating?

 

Not exactly morally righteous to expect Jamaica to train up our nurses for us, either. But, looking on the bright side, I suppose it helps us reduce the deficit - and in a few decades people will be able to grumble about there being too many West Indians in the country, like they did in the 70s.

 

[Strokes]

6 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Ironically, it was mentioned in a Windrush debate yesterday (C4 News?) that the UK has an ongoing recruitment drive in Jamaica - seeking to recruit lots of qualified Jamaican nurses.

Don't suppose the Windrush fiasco will help. I'm sure that higher pay will still attract some, but the idea that our immigration policy will treat them like scum if they stay too long might put some off.

 

If we want to have fewer European workers in this country, might it not be a good idea to fund the training and employment of British nurses properly? Instead of using the wage differential to nick qualified Jamaican nurses on the cheap - to replace the qualified European nurses that we nicked on the cheap but are now alienating?

 

Not exactly morally righteous to expect Jamaica to train up our nurses for us, either. But, looking on the bright side, I suppose it helps us reduce the deficit - and in a few decades people will be able to grumble about there being too many West Indians in the country, like they did in the 70s.

 

I agree that we need to fund home training and that should have always been the case. Sadly this government is completely inept at looking at the bigger picture when it comes to education.

That article is a typical guardian brexit hatchet job again though, I know you guys love much more balanced reporting of the facts. So why does it not mention the huge increase in the non EU migrant nurses from the Philippines, India etc? Shitrag.

[CarbonVirtine]

15 minutes ago, Strokes said:

So why does it not mention the huge increase in the non EU migrant nurses from the Philippines, India etc? 

I thought about that very thing when I read said article, not that I knew the answer. Has there been an increase in non EU nurses? I don't know, BUT there was that gaping hole in the article. I have a tendency to be Guardian leaning left-ish but there are times when it leaves me feeling there's an attempt to manipulate me with an unsubtle agenda. Why, it's sometimes enough to make me support Brexit  

Edited 25 April 2018 by CarbonVirtine

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, CarbonVirtine said:

I thought about that very thing when I read said article, not that I knew the answer. Has there been an increase in non EU nurses? I don't know? BUT there was that gaping hole in the article. I have a tendency to be Guardian leaning left-ish but there are times when it leaves me feeling there's an attempt to manipulated me with an unsubtle agenda. Why, it's sometimes enough to make me support Brexit  

Yes there has been an increase. It doesn’t cover the decrease in EU nurses but it goes about halfway to covering that loss. Hopefully as Alf says, the Windrush farce doesn’t stem that at all.

[Guest MattP]

There is nothing wrong with the Guardian writing articles to suit it's editorials and satify it's readers, that's what all publications do to a certain extent, the only one that really managed to find genuine balance was the old Independent before it went for the clickbait market.

 

The problem is when those who read the Guardian don't recognise it and expect others to take it as gospel (i.e posting on here as some form of evidence) whilst then criticising the Mail and the Telegraph for the same thing.

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I agree that we need to fund home training and that should have always been the case. Sadly this government is completely inept at looking at the bigger picture when it comes to education.

That article is a typical guardian brexit hatchet job again though, I know you guys love much more balanced reporting of the facts. So why does it not mention the huge increase in the non EU migrant nurses from the Philippines, India etc? Shitrag.

 

Agree with you on both points: the govt's failure to see the bigger picture and the slanted journalism of the Guardian. Even as someone more sympathetic to the Guardian's politics I find some of its slanted articles annoying.

That's why I switched to the Independent back when that started and was still a good paper - more balance and challenge to the reader's thinking, not just pandering to the reader's prejudices like the Grauniad or the Mail. I now only get the Guardian on Saturday - mainly for opinion articles & lifestyle stuff, not news reporting, though some investigative/analytical articles are good.

 

Tbf, short-term thinking afflicts both main UK parties, but the Tories are in power now - at a critical period in our history. It's not just education/immigration, the same criticism can be made re. the Irish border, housing, apprenticeships etc.

Maybe that's another argument in favour of electoral reform - coalitions can produce greater stability and more long-term, strategic politics, rather than just short-term fixes that keep the electorate onside?

 

I suppose the Guardian would argue that their article was about the impact of Brexit. But it would certainly have been more balanced and informative to include info about any large influx from India & Philippines (I wasn't aware of that myself) - or indeed from Jamaica. Mind you, I do wonder whether the Brexit-voting public are really going to be happier if there are a lot fewer European nurses and lot more Indians and Filipinos. I know immigration wasn't the only factor in the Brexit vote but it was one of them - and I don't think people concerned about high immigration just wanted more Indians and fewer Poles...

[Strokes]

58 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Agree with you on both points: the govt's failure to see the bigger picture and the slanted journalism of the Guardian. Even as someone more sympathetic to the Guardian's politics I find some of its slanted articles annoying.

That's why I switched to the Independent back when that started and was still a good paper - more balance and challenge to the reader's thinking, not just pandering to the reader's prejudices like the Grauniad or the Mail. I now only get the Guardian on Saturday - mainly for opinion articles & lifestyle stuff, not news reporting, though some investigative/analytical articles are good.

 

Tbf, short-term thinking afflicts both main UK parties, but the Tories are in power now - at a critical period in our history. It's not just education/immigration, the same criticism can be made re. the Irish border, housing, apprenticeships etc.

Maybe that's another argument in favour of electoral reform - coalitions can produce greater stability and more long-term, strategic politics, rather than just short-term fixes that keep the electorate onside?

 

I suppose the Guardian would argue that their article was about the impact of Brexit. But it would certainly have been more balanced and informative to include info about any large influx from India & Philippines (I wasn't aware of that myself) - or indeed from Jamaica. Mind you, I do wonder whether the Brexit-voting public are really going to be happier if there are a lot fewer European nurses and lot more Indians and Filipinos. I know immigration wasn't the only factor in the Brexit vote but it was one of them - and I don't think people concerned about high immigration just wanted more Indians and fewer Poles...

I can’t speak for everyone that voted for brexit Alf but my concern regarding immigration was always uncontrolled unskilled cheap labour suppressing wages. I’ve got no problem with immigration numbers increasing, so long as it’s what we need at the time. 

Its funny though, we were told not long ago that ok not all brexit voters are racist but all racists are brexit voters. With the Windrush farce both Rudd and May have been called racist and they were both remainers

 

[Rogstanley]

18 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I can’t speak for everyone that voted for brexit Alf but my concern regarding immigration was always uncontrolled unskilled cheap labour suppressing wages. I’ve got no problem with immigration numbers increasing, so long as it’s what we need at the time. 

Its funny though, we were told not long ago that ok not all brexit voters are racist but all racists are brexit voters. With the Windrush farce both Rudd and May have been called racist and they were both remainers

 

So you've got an issue with unskilled migrants doing unskilled work, possibly driving down the wages of unskilled people. But no issue with skilled migrants doing skilled work, possibly driving down the wages of skilled people? 

Edited 25 April 2018 by Rogstanley

[Innovindil]

1 minute ago, Rogstanley said:

So you've got an issue with unskilled migrants doing unskilled work for minimum wage, possible driving down the wages of unskilled people. But no issue with skilled migrants doing skilled work, possibly driving down the wages of skilled people? 

Think it's more to do with him believing we need the skilled people to fill a gap that we can't tbh. 

[Rogstanley]

Just now, Innovindil said:

Think it's more to do with him believing we need the skilled people to fill a gap that we can't tbh. 

Why can't we fill the gap?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

There is nothing wrong with the Guardian writing articles to suit it's editorials and satify it's readers, that's what all publications do to a certain extent, the only one that really managed to find genuine balance was the old Independent before it went for the clickbait market.

 

The problem is when those who read the Guardian don't recognise it and expect others to take it as gospel (i.e posting on here as some form of evidence) whilst then criticising the Mail and the Telegraph for the same thing.

I put Guardian articles up to spark conversation, not to treat as gospel. The fact you can't consider that this option exists is bizarre. I literally asked for right wing opinion.

Edited 25 April 2018 by Guest

[Strokes]

26 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

So you've got an issue with unskilled migrants doing unskilled work, possibly driving down the wages of unskilled people. But no issue with skilled migrants doing skilled work, possibly driving down the wages of skilled people? 

Exactly.

[Strokes]

26 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Why can't we fill the gap?

Because there are more skilled jobs than skilled natives.....keep up moosey.

[Guest MattP]

9 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I put Guardian articles up to spark conversation, not to treat as gospel. The fact you can't consider that this option exists is bizarre. I literally asked for right wing opinion.

Make sure you watch the Daily Poltiics today, hilarious.

 

Labour now has a parliamentary candidate for the next election (Worcester) that believes the Jo Cox murder has no evidence, the Manchester and Westminster attacks were faked, she has also tried to sue MI6, MI5, Thames Water, Hackney Council and the centrist Labour group Progress - https://news.sky.com/story/calls-mount-to-deselect-fantasist-labour-candidate-mandy-richards-11344557

 

She turned up at a hustings last year and did so well they selected her Is this now the sort of candidate your membership selects? UKIP used to attract some nutters but you lot have raised the bar superbly.

[Rogstanley]

13 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Exactly.

Right, that's a bit strange though. Why would have a problem with one but not the other?

 

10 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Because there are more skilled jobs than skilled natives.

Yes which is obviously a supply and demand issue. Take nursing for example, we don't have a shortage of people capable of being nurses, just a shortage of people wanting to be nurses. To solve that problem they need to make going into nursing sufficiently attractive, typically by increasing wages. The other solution is to import foreign nurses on lower wages, which would potentially have the effect of suppressing wages of native nurses.

 

Why that would be fine in your eyes on the basis that nurses are skilled, but isn't fine for people who are unskilled doesn't really make a lot of sense tbqh

 

Edited 25 April 2018 by Rogstanley

[Kopfkino]

5 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

Well yes, that is what Corbyn said. Here's a video of him saying it.

 

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2017/jun/18/empty-properties-should-be-seized-in-emergencies-says-corbyn-video

 

He's quite clear to point out that in an emergency situation a range of measures, which might include requisitioning empty homes, could be used to house people who would otherwise be homeless.

 

That's vastly different to having "no respect for property rights" as well you know. You're obviously trying to imply Corbyn has said he'll just go around stealing rich people's houses "on a whim" but that's just not true is it, because he hasn't said anything of the sort. The exaggeration is unnecessary and only serves to weaken the point being made.

 

I don't agree with requisitioning homes myself, but can certainly sympathise with the idea, especially given a lot of these properties are left empty for years, many owned by people who have never even visited the UK. The idea that the financial investment of someone who has never been here is more important than somebody's life is an odd one to day the least, but maybe that's me just not understanding "British values" again.

 

You're a confused little man Rog. For a start it made up at best a quarter of my point, for which the other three  you've practically already conceded.

 

Requisitioning does show a lack of respect for property rights whether it be an emergency or deemed necessary or whatever. Frankly it is not necessary in the case of Grenfell and what it does show, in my opinion, is Corbyn's instinct to treat property as the state's first and foremost. 

 

Ultimately your last paragraph is the same nonsense left-wing populism. The LSE found, in a report commissioned by the mayor, that on new builds "There was almost no evidence of units being left entirely empty". I don't see why that would be vastly different for non new builds. They also found that the vast majority used as second homes were bought by UK buyers. And they also found that overseas property investment is often key to getting developments off the ground. So yes i do value foreign investment because it's downsides are vastly overplayed in the name of populist socialism and there are other ways of helping people beyond just taking things off others, which is Corbyn's stock answer for almost everything.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

I can’t speak for everyone that voted for brexit Alf but my concern regarding immigration was always uncontrolled unskilled cheap labour suppressing wages. I’ve got no problem with immigration numbers increasing, so long as it’s what we need at the time. 

Its funny though, we were told not long ago that ok not all brexit voters are racist but all racists are brexit voters. With the Windrush farce both Rudd and May have been called racist and they were both remainers

 

 

 

I doubt that many politicians are racist (aside from the likes of Griffin). Racially ignorant in a few cases, maybe. If Sharpe's Fox's gossip about Rudd shagging Kwase Kwarteng is accurate (as it seems to be), she presumably isn't a racist. 

 

Politicians pandering to the racism of some voters is the problem. All parties have been guilty of that to some extent, but this Windrush business and the "hostile environment" policy take it to another level....pandering to voters again the cause.

 

Linking this to my electoral reform hobby horse.... Rees-Mogg took part in the C4 debate last night. He was saying how, as an MP in Somerset, the one "Windrush" constituency case he'd had was an Australian, long-term resident and facing similar problems to the West Indians in places like Inner London. If we had an STV system, we'd have Tory MPs in the inner cities and Labour MPs in market towns/rural areas, so there'd be less ignorance all round. I mean, how many potential Windrush deportees will Tory MPs meet in their constituencies in Surrey, Bucks or Norfolk....and how aware of issues in farming will Labour MPs be in their constituencies in Salford, Hackney or Leicester?

Edited 25 April 2018 by Alf Bentley