Guest Posted 18 May 2018 Posted 18 May 2018 45 minutes ago, MattP said: Sorry but you are showing your political ignorance here. Without even considering the public perception and intolerance of the Conservative party yet again having a leadership contest, if May was usurped at this point in time by a Brexit cartel then the votes of the small faction of hard/hardish Remainers in the Tory party would be gone for the rest of parliament and then you are either faced with another general election to try and pass legislation through for what they would want or softening even greater than it looks now, for all the criticism of May she's actually done extremely well so far bringing the two sides together, she has lost one vote because of the rebels so far and instead the unelected house has been the one causing more problems. At the minute it's best for them to sit tight, see the departure through and then set out plans for when they take control in the future. If the Tories had a majority of 60, what you suggest would have happened, but it would be completely insane with the mathematics of parliament to pro a Mogg, Gove or Johnson in charge now. The time to go "harder" would either be with an increased majority next time around, or even see Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell try and do it as they seek further re-nationalisation and avoidance of deficit control. I'm certainly not being politically naive. The pint is there isn't enough support in parliament to do it. Their hard Brexit manifesto resulted in a hung parliament. It tells you everything you need to know about Brexit. Re Corbyn and McDonnell your attempts to troll are pretty poor. I can only see labour getting cost and closer to taking a position of staying in the single market as the bad news keeps coming (staff and companies moving overseas and a 90% drop in foreign investment) and public opinion changes. Corbyn can't hold his position as leader forever when it's patently obvious you can nationalise within the EU. The Tories have done it this week. Re the deficit the labour manifesto position is to reduce the deficit on day to day spend but borrow a set amount for infrastructure spending - the same promises both labour and Tories made in 1997 I believe.
Buce Posted 18 May 2018 Posted 18 May 2018 31 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: "He who gets on the bus bearing a can will see burnt cucumbers surge from his pubes"? This Senaca bloke needs to be relieved of his position as Stagecoach CEO. There's no fooling a translator...
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 18 May 2018 Posted 18 May 2018 25 minutes ago, toddybad said: Re Corbyn and McDonnell your attempts to troll are pretty poor. I can only see labour getting cost and closer to taking a position of staying in the single market as the bad news keeps coming (staff and companies moving overseas and a 90% drop in foreign investment) and public opinion changes. Corbyn can't hold his position as leader forever when it's patently obvious you can nationalise within the EU. The Tories have done it this week. Re the deficit the labour manifesto position is to reduce the deficit on day to day spend but borrow a set amount for infrastructure spending - the same promises both labour and Tories made in 1997 I believe. Corbyn wont ever stay in the single market, that man is an idiot. If we get all of the bad things you mention because of Brexit then they will sure be a lot worse with a Labour government so I sure cant wait to see those eye watering unemployment figures. Brexit and a mad far left socialist extremist in charge of the country is a recipe for disaster. Re nationalisation. The Tories have nationalised the East Coast Mainline due to the companies running it deciding it wasn't profitable enough and pulling out, I personally think the railway franchise system is broken and needs review, we may as well run it nationalised if all we are going to do is pay foreign state companies to run it for us badly, and use the profits to fun their own networks. Its somewhat different to Corbyn's disturbing proposals of 'requisitioning' energy/utility companies at a price 'determined by parliament', this kind of dangerous action would have a serious impact on the money markets, the kind of nonsense to crash economies. The manifesto position is somewhat different to the circumstances they will have with an unravelling economy, lower tax take, higher benefits costs, increased budgets here and there, requisitioning this and that, higher debt costs. There is absolutely no way on earth Labour will ever run without a deficit with the spending plans and tax plans they have, its just not possible.
Alf Bentley Posted 18 May 2018 Posted 18 May 2018 Interesting piece on C4 News last night, suggesting that some unionists in N. Ireland are becoming more open to the idea of a united Ireland, due to Brexit, potential border issues etc. I cannot see it happening any time soon, even when demographics leave Irish nationalists in the majority. There would still be fierce opposition from a sizeable part of the unionist community that would only dissipate with greater cross-community trust over a longer period, surely. Though the Irish Republic would presumably guarantee minority rights and would get a lot of EU development funding to support the North (reversal of the historic situation whereby the North was wealthier than the South). For those who want N. Ireland to remain part of the UK, it's another reason to take care over the Irish border issue. Never mind the potential risk of a return to violence, if border controls hamper trade and do economic damage, it might shift more unionists into accepting departure from the UK....
Sharpe's Fox Posted 18 May 2018 Posted 18 May 2018 59 minutes ago, toddybad said: it's patently obvious you can nationalise within the EU. 1
Guest MattP Posted 18 May 2018 Posted 18 May 2018 1 hour ago, toddybad said: I'm certainly not being politically naive. The pint is there isn't enough support in parliament to do it. Their hard Brexit manifesto resulted in a hung parliament. It tells you everything you need to know about Brexit. Re Corbyn and McDonnell your attempts to troll are pretty poor. I can only see labour getting cost and closer to taking a position of staying in the single market as the bad news keeps coming (staff and companies moving overseas and a 90% drop in foreign investment) and public opinion changes. Corbyn can't hold his position as leader forever when it's patently obvious you can nationalise within the EU. The Tories have done it this week. Re the deficit the labour manifesto position is to reduce the deficit on day to day spend but borrow a set amount for infrastructure spending - the same promises both labour and Tories made in 1997 I believe. You've literally explained to yourself in the top line why it can't happen but still complain about it, no parliamentary support so what would be the point of a pro-Brexit coup? As for the Labour position, you have been saying that for nearly two years now and we've seen front benchers sacked for suggesting we stay in the single market and the only shift has been a move to stay in "a customs union" that still allows us to negotiate trade, which almost everyone agrees is fantasy. Tell me, if I'm trolling (I think you are saying that in reality as you know it's true), why do you think Cornyn and McDonnell both voted against virtually every piece of EU legislation going?
Guest Posted 18 May 2018 Posted 18 May 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, MattP said: You've literally explained to yourself in the top line why it can't happen but still complain about it, no parliamentary support so what would be the point of a pro-Brexit coup? As for the Labour position, you have been saying that for nearly two years now and we've seen front benchers sacked for suggesting we stay in the single market and the only shift has been a move to stay in "a customs union" that still allows us to negotiate trade, which almost everyone agrees is fantasy. Tell me, if I'm trolling (I think you are saying that in reality as you know it's true), why do you think Cornyn and McDonnell both voted against virtually every piece of EU legislation going? You misunderstand my first point. My point is that it's politically impossible because hard Brexit is not the mainstream Brexit. They argue that soft Brexiters/remainders are ruining their great conquest but can't even drum up enough support to have a Brexiteer lead the party of Brexit (as it has become). Re labour there's an awful lot of pressure on Corbyn internally and mps will imo vote against the party when the lords amendments come back to the commons if the leadership does take a hard line. The parties members and mps all want to see a softer line so it's more a question of how long Corbyn can withstand the pressure from within the party. It also depends what the Tories come up with for the deal. If they mess it up completely and end up with nothing it doesn't really matter what position labour takes the Tories will be in trouble. It would though make some sense for Tories, labour and lib dems to represent hard Brexit, soft Brexit, no Brexit though at the moment that would simply continue to drive the north to the Tories and cities to labour. Tbh politics and voters are so defined by Brexit atm nobody is going to know how politics afterwards pans out for quite some thing yet. Edited 18 May 2018 by Guest
breadandcheese Posted 18 May 2018 Posted 18 May 2018 I'm still hopeful that there's political change in Europe, with EU reform, such that we decide to stay within a changed EU. Come on Italy. My last wishful thinking is on you. 1
Guest MattP Posted 18 May 2018 Posted 18 May 2018 2 hours ago, toddybad said: You misunderstand my first point. My point is that it's politically impossible because hard Brexit is not the mainstream Brexit. They argue that soft Brexiters/remainders are ruining their great conquest but can't even drum up enough support to have a Brexiteer lead the party of Brexit (as it has become). Re labour there's an awful lot of pressure on Corbyn internally and mps will imo vote against the party when the lords amendments come back to the commons if the leadership does take a hard line. The parties members and mps all want to see a softer line so it's more a question of how long Corbyn can withstand the pressure from within the party. It also depends what the Tories come up with for the deal. If they mess it up completely and end up with nothing it doesn't really matter what position labour takes the Tories will be in trouble. It would though make some sense for Tories, labour and lib dems to represent hard Brexit, soft Brexit, no Brexit though at the moment that would simply continue to drive the north to the Tories and cities to labour. Tbh politics and voters are so defined by Brexit atm nobody is going to know how politics afterwards pans out for quite some thing yet. The why on earth are you calling the hard Brexiteers for not launching a coup on the PM? As for the Labour viewpoint, thankfully Corbyn has showed already he is more than strong enough to stand up to all this and whereas it might be bad for politics for the moderates to be sidelined by the mob, it's fantastic for making sure Brexit isn't watered down to a BINO.
leicsmac Posted 18 May 2018 Posted 18 May 2018 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44162017 Something of a diplomatic collision course here?
Buce Posted 18 May 2018 Posted 18 May 2018 2 minutes ago, leicsmac said: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44162017 Something of a diplomatic collision course here? Good to see the EU showing some balls. 1
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 18 May 2018 Posted 18 May 2018 1 hour ago, breadandcheese said: I'm still hopeful that there's political change in Europe, with EU reform, such that we decide to stay within a changed EU. Come on Italy. My last wishful thinking is on you. Me too, Me too. The EU can be a great thing, unfortunately it has tried to be something it shouldn't.
Webbo Posted 18 May 2018 Posted 18 May 2018 1 hour ago, breadandcheese said: I'm still hopeful that there's political change in Europe, with EU reform, such that we decide to stay within a changed EU. Come on Italy. My last wishful thinking is on you. I think that ship has sailed now. If they kept it to close cooperation between countries, nobody would be against it. Unfortunately the only countries that count, France and Germany see reform as even closer integration. it's not impossible that if it did reform we could re join sometime, but I don't see it happening personally.
breadandcheese Posted 18 May 2018 Posted 18 May 2018 (edited) 37 minutes ago, Webbo said: I think that ship has sailed now. If they kept it to close cooperation between countries, nobody would be against it. Unfortunately the only countries that count, France and Germany see reform as even closer integration. it's not impossible that if it did reform we could re join sometime, but I don't see it happening personally. I do appreciate it's wishful thinking. But I can see some European change occurring during our transition period (which looks to be getting longer all the time). Italy look like the best catalyst for that at the moment. Macron has seen his dreams of further European integration dashed on the altars of the Eastern European countries and the German public will become more sceptical when there are further bailouts needed. Italy could be a catalyst for this. Time will tell, I guess. Edited 18 May 2018 by breadandcheese
Guest Posted 18 May 2018 Posted 18 May 2018 (edited) Ruth Davidson has finally made her first move towards party leadership, without really saying anything worthwhile (which is still an improvement on anybody in the cabinet). My fellow Tories, I’m afraid the crash generation just doesn’t trust us https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/18/tories-crash-generation-young-people-conservative-ruth-davidson?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard Edited 18 May 2018 by Guest
Sharpe's Fox Posted 18 May 2018 Posted 18 May 2018 1 hour ago, toddybad said: Ruth Davidson has finally made her first move towards party leadership, without really saying anything worthwhile (which is still an improvement on anybody in the cabinet). My fellow Tories, I’m afraid the crash generation just doesn’t trust us https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/18/tories-crash-generation-young-people-conservative-ruth-davidson?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard The younger generation, and society at large, is not yearning for a five-year plan of centrally delivered tractor quotas. that right there is why the silly bitch won’t be winning the argument. Young people thinking they are getting a bad deal from neoliberism in the poison dwarfs view are full-on collectivising Stalinists.
Guest Posted 20 May 2018 Posted 20 May 2018 If this is true TM has finally told the tory Brexiters what reality looks like. Can't wait for a deal over an single market and customs union unending transition. Brexit realists take control as May slaps down Rees-Mogg https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/20/theresa-may-brexit-realists-jacob-rees-mogg?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 21 May 2018 Posted 21 May 2018 Back on form I see: Just proves these cretins can not be trusted. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-44189922/john-mcdonnell-says-overthrowing-capitalism-is-his-job The same blokes who rave over the equality and social justice created in Venezuela, oh yes the country where equally no-one can wipe their own ass. The same Venezuela currently holding a corrupt election for their 'comrade' where the opposition is 'banned', voters are bribed with cash and food payments to vote for their mighty leader. Corbyn and McDonnell still refuse to condemn this regime, although they have no decided that it is not really a 'socialist country'. Ok then, is that because it is shit? Or is it them cvnts that are full of shit?
leicsmac Posted 21 May 2018 Posted 21 May 2018 14 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: Back on form I see: Just proves these cretins can not be trusted. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-44189922/john-mcdonnell-says-overthrowing-capitalism-is-his-job The same blokes who rave over the equality and social justice created in Venezuela, oh yes the country where equally no-one can wipe their own ass. The same Venezuela currently holding a corrupt election for their 'comrade' where the opposition is 'banned', voters are bribed with cash and food payments to vote for their mighty leader. Corbyn and McDonnell still refuse to condemn this regime, although they have no decided that it is not really a 'socialist country'. Ok then, is that because it is shit? Or is it them cvnts that are full of shit? Foxin, mate, showing either tacit or overt support for a country that has nasty human rights records isn't a single-party problem, you know that, right?
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 21 May 2018 Posted 21 May 2018 (edited) 28 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Foxin, mate, showing either tacit or overt support for a country that has nasty human rights records isn't a single-party problem, you know that, right? Of course but supposedly Labour are perfect, they are the solution to all the world problems, social justice etc. My problem is they are following a failed model, that has extremely questionable motives, yet people fall for it time and time again. In these counties you have bonkers extremists running the show, their only aim is to make everyone poorer so they can control them in everyway. They hold the cards to education, food, health care, money. Then there is the old 'if you don't vote for us we wont give you any food or money handouts card. The shit McDonnell is spouting is the same kind of utter bollocks that Chavez spoke about and implemented, in a reasonably wealthy, oil rich country. The entire front bench for Labour can at some point be found championing the marvellous man Chavez and the social justice he implemented. If not being able to wipe you own ass on bog roll is social justice they can keep it. You can not 'overthrow capitalism' and let the 'workers control' factories, its raving bonkers nonsense. Edited 21 May 2018 by Foxin_mad
leicsmac Posted 21 May 2018 Posted 21 May 2018 1 minute ago, Foxin_mad said: Of course but supposedly Labour are perfect, they are the solution to all the world problems, social justice etc. My problem is they are following a failed model, that has extremely questionable motives, yet people fall for it time and time again. In these counties you have bonkers extremists running the show, their only aim is to make everyone poorer so they can control them in everyway. The hold the cards to education, food, health care, money. Then there is the old 'if you don't wont for us we wont give you any food or money handouts card. The shit McDonnell is spouting is the same kind of utter bollocks that Chavez spoke about and implemented, in a reasonably wealthy, oil rich country. The entire front bench for Labour can at some point be found championing the marvellous man Chavez and the social justice he implemented. If not being able to wipe you own ass on bog roll is social justice they can keep it. You can not 'overthrow capitalism' and let the 'workers control' factories, its raving bonkers nonsense. From all of this you would get the impression that it's only "socialist" states that have massive wealth disparity and trouble with distribution of resources - to say nothing of keeping all their problems in-house and going imperialist at the barrel of a g- sorry, "exporting democracy" in the way that some rather more capitalist states are keen on doing. That's not really the case, is it? This is just my take but I think there's more than enough criticism of the beliefs of the Labour front bench (bit of a strawman to suggest they all like Venezuela too) to go around - as there should be of any people with power.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 21 May 2018 Posted 21 May 2018 9 minutes ago, leicsmac said: From all of this you would get the impression that it's only "socialist" states that have massive wealth disparity and trouble with distribution of resources - to say nothing of keeping all their problems in-house and going imperialist at the barrel of a g- sorry, "exporting democracy" in the way that some rather more capitalist states are keen on doing. That's not really the case, is it? This is just my take but I think there's more than enough criticism of the beliefs of the Labour front bench (bit of a strawman to suggest they all like Venezuela too) to go around - as there should be of any people with power. I do not think there is anywhere quite as bad as Venezuela and North Korea in terms of the above, I would say both are pretty fine examples of where socialism can lead. Its very much Animal Farm, All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others Of course capitalism has its problems, very many. The real issue is that every person is different, we are never all going to fit into 1 box. The current system may not be perfect but for me it is many times better than the alternative being suggested.
Sampson Posted 21 May 2018 Posted 21 May 2018 6 minutes ago, leicsmac said: From all of this you would get the impression that it's only "socialist" states that have massive wealth disparity and trouble with distribution of resources - to say nothing of keeping all their problems in-house and going imperialist at the barrel of a g- sorry, "exporting democracy" in the way that some rather more capitalist states are keen on doing. That's not really the case, is it? This is just my take but I think there's more than enough criticism of the beliefs of the Labour front bench (bit of a strawman to suggest they all like Venezuela too) to go around - as there should be of any people with power. What a strange post. It's nothing to do with wealth "disparity" - Capitalism always has more disparity, that's the point, but it also doesn't think Economic equality helps people out of poverty. And what does foreign policy have to do with Economic decisions. Unless you're trying to say Capitalism only worked because of imperialism and Socialism only failed because of Capitalist imperialism allowing it to steal their resources - in which case you just be joking? The different is Capitalism at least can work and help people out of poverty sometimes, whereas Socialism only keeps people in it/causes more of it. It's a Utopian fantasy because humans still can't face the finality and pointlessness of life, so had to create a story of Utopia - a better life- to make it all worthwhile. Religion died in the 19th Century and Socialism replaces that- the grand movement than deified the worker rather than God and leads to the Communist nirvana on Earth - people are willing to believe in it despite it being so obviously silly and counter-intuitive because it makes them feel like their life was worth it and they were a help to lead mankins to a better place. I can't understand how genuinely intellegent people still believe in that guff in 2018. At least religion has nice stories to it. I know we have a lame duck of a government but how people can genuinely want this man in charge of country's Economy utterly baffles me. There's plenty of other parties to vote for that can offer alternatives or ways to dustrinute capital difderently that have nothing to do with public ownership aren't just the living incarnation of everything the History books warns us against. 1
Beechey Posted 21 May 2018 Posted 21 May 2018 When will Labour ditch Corbyn? His handling of everything from the Salisbury nerve gas attack to his limp hand on antisemitism is clearly turning voters off. Opinium (19th May): CON lead +4 YouGov (14th May): CON lead +5 ICM (13th May): CON lead +3 Survation (10th May): CON lead +1 BMG (4th May): TIE For an opposition that is fighting a party that's been in government for 8 years, this is shockingly poor.
Alf Bentley Posted 21 May 2018 Posted 21 May 2018 39 minutes ago, Sampson said: What a strange post. It's nothing to do with wealth "disparity" - Capitalism always has more disparity, that's the point, but it also doesn't think Economic equality helps people out of poverty. And what does foreign policy have to do with Economic decisions. Unless you're trying to say Capitalism only worked because of imperialism and Socialism only failed because of Capitalist imperialism allowing it to steal their resources - in which case you just be joking? The different is Capitalism at least can work and help people out of poverty sometimes, whereas Socialism only keeps people in it/causes more of it. It's a Utopian fantasy because humans still can't face the finality and pointlessness of life, so had to create a story of Utopia - a better life- to make it all worthwhile. Religion died in the 19th Century and Socialism replaces that- the grand movement than deified the worker rather than God and leads to the Communist nirvana on Earth - people are willing to believe in it despite it being so obviously silly and counter-intuitive because it makes them feel like their life was worth it and they were a help to lead mankins to a better place. I can't understand how genuinely intellegent people still believe in that guff in 2018. At least religion has nice stories to it. I know we have a lame duck of a government but how people can genuinely want this man in charge of country's Economy utterly baffles me. There's plenty of other parties to vote for that can offer alternatives or ways to dustrinute capital difderently that have nothing to do with public ownership aren't just the living incarnation of everything the History books warns us against. I'm not going to get into some time-consuming argument, but the way that "socialism" means very different things to different people clouds this debate. To even address its success or failure, you'd have to define "socialism", as opposed to "social democracy", "democratic socialism", "liberal socialism", "communism" etc.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Social_democracy_and_liberal_socialism Many would see the Attlee government as a socialist government, which helped people out of poverty - while others would define it as "social democratic", because it retained a mixed economy, while tilting the system more towards social ownership and social spending. I completely agree with your point about humans needing to embrace "the finality and pointlessness of life". We need more people thinking like this, abandoning utopianism (socialist or laissez-faire capitalist utopias) and materialism, and focusing instead on enjoying the brief, wonderful joke of life as individuals and social beings - and ensuring that all members of society have that opportunity. Sorry if that all sounds a bit Lennonesque ("Imagine"). As for "leading mankins to a better place", they already have their leader....
Recommended Posts