Also in the news

[Mike Oxlong]

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/ag-v-yaxley-lennon-jmt-190709.pdf

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

47 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/ag-v-yaxley-lennon-jmt-190709.pdf

Interesting at the bottom of page 20 it states the Attorney General changed his position from saying that TR risked the trial by impacting on jurors to risking the trial by impact on the defendants

 

They support this by saying thay he incited harassment from the public but he is in fact referring to the press

 

Reading through that I can see problems in his defense though, regarding awareness of the RRO, although they admit the court "regrettably" failed to display it properly, but there are problems with the prosecution, some of it seems a bit disingenuous

 

Edited 13 July 2019 by AlloverthefloorYesNdidi

[Mike Oxlong]

Tom Watson seems to be a more effective critic of labour than anyone outside his party at the moment. 

[Alf Bentley]

@Buce

 

Interesting tittle-tattle, but is there more to it....? https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-party-richard-tice-darroch-18206347

 

"The journalist who sparked the resignation of Britain’s US ambassador is in a relationship with Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party chairman. Isabel Oakeshott – who revealed Sir Kim Darroch’s leaked Donald Trump emails – has been with MEP Richard Tice since last year. [....] After the envoy quit in the absence of backing from Boris Johnson, Mr Tice tweeted: “Should be pro-Brexit businessperson who can accelerate free trade talks Darroch had been lamentable at.” He later added: “Now it’s time for a pro-Brexit businessman to be appointed who can lead a quick US trade deal.”

 

Needless to say, Oakeshott denies that Tice was involved - and I suspect that conspiracy theories about him wanting the ambassador's job himself are wide of the mark. Certainly an interesting coincidence, though. Oakeshott also co-wrote the notorious "penis in a pig's head" biography of Cameron published a few months before the Brexit referendum.

[Alf Bentley]

Decent article by Rory Stewart in the New Statesman: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/07/what-wrong-us

 

"The lesson is that it is possible to change minds, and defeat extremist positions; but not by explaining tariff levels. If 72 per cent of voters are dissatisfied with the UK democratic system – half believing that the government doesn’t care about them, and more than half saying that “Britain needs a strong leader willing to break the rules” – you cannot expect to win simply on technocratic arguments. But nor should you feel forced to respond with nonsense and fairy tales. What I had seen, walking around the country, is that democratic life is neither about echoing and deepening pre-existing prejudices, nor only about communicating economics. To support a sensible, pragmatic position, you have to begin by rediscovering a sense of anger and shame. And acknowledge how unforgiveable and appalling many things are in modern Britain".

[leicsmac]

I wonder....given the current political climate, is it possible to do a decent mutually beneficial trade deal with the US (which would be a good thing) while at the same time giving legitimate criticism of some of the policy actions of the current US administration? Or must it be one or the other?

[Buce]

18 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

@Buce

 

Interesting tittle-tattle, but is there more to it....? https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-party-richard-tice-darroch-18206347

 

"The journalist who sparked the resignation of Britain’s US ambassador is in a relationship with Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party chairman. Isabel Oakeshott – who revealed Sir Kim Darroch’s leaked Donald Trump emails – has been with MEP Richard Tice since last year. [....] After the envoy quit in the absence of backing from Boris Johnson, Mr Tice tweeted: “Should be pro-Brexit businessperson who can accelerate free trade talks Darroch had been lamentable at.” He later added: “Now it’s time for a pro-Brexit businessman to be appointed who can lead a quick US trade deal.”

 

Needless to say, Oakeshott denies that Tice was involved - and I suspect that conspiracy theories about him wanting the ambassador's job himself are wide of the mark. Certainly an interesting coincidence, though. Oakeshott also co-wrote the notorious "penis in a pig's head" biography of Cameron published a few months before the Brexit referendum.

 

We shall know more soon, Alf - according to this morning’s news they are closing in on the ‘leaker’.

 

It smells to high heaven, though. 

[Grebfromgrebland]

What gets me is that Tice, his bit of fluff, IDS, Farage, that ducking cow from the institute of financial affairs, the tax payers alliance all get on the BBC and question time disproportionately to spout their agenda and are never challenged.

 

These guys only have the interests of big corporations and tax dodgers at heart all at the expense of the UK citizens.

 

In normal times this would get discussed on the politics shows and newspapers but they've mostly been hijacked.

 

Try explaining to a brexiteer that the US wants to reduce food standards, get involved with the NHS and increase pharmaceutical costs and they just say that it would never happen and to believe.

 

I'm making a foil helmet as we speak and going to live in a campsite in Wales.

 

 

[Grebfromgrebland]

Every school I know in Leicester is massively under funded and it should be a national scandal but the problem is that under the Tories this is just normal now.

 

We as a nation have been conditioned to accept that things are just shit and will remain that way. 

 

It's Dickensian in the way that the poor are always the most affected and it's deliberate and systematic. Causing this kind of hardship on people then instead of blaming the government make foreigners the enemy, blame he EU and Muslims instead of under funding.

 

Then get the brexit vote you want. 

 

Keep them dumb and get them angry and hateful. They'll do what ever you want....

Revealed: how wealthy parents widen cash gap between state schools

Huge sums are raised by PTAs in affluent areas but headteachers in less well-off districts still struggle for funds

• Tale of two schools: ‘We’re paying for a mother to bring her child to school out of PTA funds’

Donna Ferguson and Niamh McIntyre

Sun 14 Jul 2019 07.00 BSTLast modified on Sun 14 Jul 2019 09.31 BST

•  
•  
•  

Shares

218

 

 

Elite state schools in England are collecting millions of pounds in donations from parents while schools with poorer pupils struggle to raise any funds at all, a far-reaching Observerinvestigation shows.

England’s 30 most successful parent-teacher associations (PTAs) raised £3.6m for their schools, the study found, while schools with the highest proportion of pupils from low-income families usually do not have a PTA, and those that do raise very little money from parents.

As headteachers across the country battle to cope with insufficient budgets and some schools are forced to close early on Fridays, the stark inequalities in education funding, caused by wealthy parents shielding their children’s state schools from the deep cuts that schools with poorer pupils must endure, are revealed in detail for the first time.

Labour’s shadow education secretary, Angela Rayner, said the Observer’s research revealed the shocking extent to which state schools are now relying on private donations to keep them afloat after nine years of Tory cuts.

“Once again, it is the most disadvantaged children who are paying the highest price for austerity, with soaring class sizes, fewer staff and teachers, and less dedicated support for the pupils who need it the most,” she said.

 

 Jules White, headteacher, and leader of the Worth Less? campaign. Photograph: Teri Pengilley/The Guardian

Jules White, a headteacher and leader of the Worth Less? school funding campaign, called the six- and seven-figure donations some state schools receive “jaw-dropping”. “What we should be doing in state schools is maximising opportunity for every pupil, not creating a system of haves and have nots,” he said. “But because the overall system is so badly underfunded, affluent parents are trying to help, with unfortunate consequences. Funding disparities between different state schools are being exacerbated, putting some children at an even greater disadvantage.”

Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you

 

 

Read more

The 30 highest-earning PTAs identified by the Observer are overwhelmingly in the south-east of England. None were in the north, half were in London, with a further nine elsewhere in the south-east. The majority of the schools they support were rated “outstanding” by Ofsted, with the rest rated “good”. Six raised more than £100,000 a year for their schools.

An analysis of academy accounts found even more extreme examples of private donations made directly to schools (rather than via PTAs). Some academies received more than £1m in direct donations from philanthropists, parents and corporate donors.

 

What we should be doing in state schools is maximising opportunity for every pupil, not creating a system of haves and have nots

Jules White, Worth Less? campaign

Cardinal Vaughan Memorial school, a Catholic boys’ comprehensive in Holland Park, west London, raised £631,770 in unrestricted donations from parents, alumni and other benefactors. The headteacher, Paul Stubbings, said: “Like all state schools at the moment, we have been placed in an impossible position by government funding: we need to contend not only with cuts, but also rising staff costs, including unfunded pay awards, rising national insurance and pension contributions and, of course, inflation. The choice is stark: we have to cut provision or raise funds. At the Vaughan, we have done the latter to ease the former.”

Stubbings asks families to donate regularly on a voluntary basis over five years and says 60% of families at the school have chosen to do so. The school needs these extra funds to cover its operational costs and avoid teacher redundancies, he said.

Of the schools with the highest-earning PTAs, only 5% of pupils on average were eligible for free school meals, lower than the national average of 15%. Schools with high proportions of pupils from low-income families often do not have PTAs.

The Observer also looked at the 30 mainstream state schools with the highest proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals in England, where two out of three children are from disadvantaged backgrounds. Most were in the north, while just three were in London. Several were rated “inadequate” or “requires improvement”. Just nine said they had an active PTA – more than two-thirds do not even attempt to raise any funds from local families. Of those with PTAs that responded to requests for information, the average annual amount raised was £1,700.

 

Once again, it is the most disadvantaged children who are paying the highest price for austerity

Angela Rayner, Labour shadow education secretary

One PTA, the Friends of Queen Elizabeth’s school in Barnet, north London, raised £894,000 – more than any other PTA that year. Most of this figure – almost £700,000 including gift aid – was from donations and legacies. Queen Elizabeth’s is a grammar school where 97% of children achieve A*-B grades at A-level and just 2% are eligible for free school meals.

According to its accounts, Tonbridge Grammar school in Kent, another high-achieving school, received £1.1m as the beneficiary of a will, which it says will primarily be used to support its most disadvantaged pupils. Less than 1% of the pupils at the school are eligible for free school meals.

A Department for Education spokesman said: “There is more money going into schools than ever before. We know schools face budgeting challenges, which is why we have introduced a wide range of support to help schools reduce costs.

“The secretary of state has made clear that as we approach the next spending review, he will back headteachers to have the resources they need to deliver a world-class education in the years ahead.”

He added that since 2011, around 0.7% of schools’ total income had come from voluntary donations, and said: “When requesting voluntary contributions, schools must make clear to parents that they are under no obligation to donate.”

• To find the highest-earning PTAs, the Observer performed a number of keyword searches on the Charity Commission website to build a database. Special schools and independent schools were excluded. Free school meals and Ofsted data were added for schools supported by PTAs. The Observer also surveyed 30 mainstream schools with the highest proportion of children on free school meals about any PTA income. PTAs, which are unincorporated charities, are not required to register with the Charity Commission unless they earn over £5,000, and the searches will not capture PTAs with non-standard names.

[Countryfox]

Apparently, although the players were told not to go to the airport, unfortunately one was already there with his little suitcase packed ...   

 

 

[Foxin_Mad]

On 14/07/2019 at 00:11, Mike Oxlong said:

Tom Watson seems to be a more effective critic of labour than anyone outside his party at the moment. 

There is no problem in the People Labour Party. Everything is fine. 

 

Ooooh Jermey Corbyn Ooooh Jermey Corbyn.

 

In the real world Watson should be leader to make these idiots electable again.

 

If Labour keep Corbyn as leader I hope they are consigned to the bin of history. 

[Alf Bentley]

25 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

There is no problem in the People Labour Party. Everything is fine. 

 

Ooooh Jermey Corbyn Ooooh Jermey Corbyn.

 

In the real world Watson should be leader to make these idiots electable again.

 

If Labour keep Corbyn as leader I hope they are consigned to the bin of history. 

 

As a Labour Party member, I don't disagree with most of what you've said.

 

Hell of a long time since I've heard that Corbyn chant, though, and don't expect to hear it again any time soon - including during any election.

If the Tories haemorrhage votes to the Brexit Party & Lib Dems, I suppose there's a chance that Labour could still win an election with 25% of the vote or whatever - but that would be an absolute travesty, and no mandate for the radical reforms needed.

 

There's a serious chance of Labour ending up in the dustbin of history, as you say. Same applies to the Tories, but that's little consolation. No mass yoof or Remainer vote for Jezza next time & I expect he'll lose a lot more traditional northern voters next time. Little chance of the Tories being quite as repellent as May was in 2017, either....though there's always a chance of Boris doing or saying something truly disgusting and alienating....what times to live in!

 

Corbyn is an incompetent, narrow-minded Stalinist cvnt, who deserves to lose the centre-left vote to other parties. If anyone knows how to hack into my FT account so as to report me to the party for saying that and have me expelled like Campbell, please do so. Can't quite bring myself to quit, but am very close to tearing up my party card & cancelling my direct debit.

 

Whether Watson is the best leadership option, I'm not sure, but at least he's a passable human being and competent politician. Labour actually has quite a number of them....just unfortunately not as party leader or among his key advisers.

 

Edited 15 July 2019 by Alf Bentley

[ealingfox]

55 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

There is no problem in the People Labour Party. Everything is fine. 

 

Ooooh Jermey Corbyn Ooooh Jermey Corbyn.

 

In the real world Watson should be leader to make these idiots electable again.

 

If Labour keep Corbyn as leader I hope they are consigned to the bin of history. 

 

If this is true why were they not elected in 2010 and 2015? Watson would be a similar ticket.

Edited 15 July 2019 by ealingfox

[Alf Bentley]

3 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

If this is true why did were they not elected in 2010 and 2015? Watson would be a similar ticket.

 

I take your implied point that a moderate, centre-left platform is not what is required - and 2015 is a valid comparison to make.

I don't think 2010 is a valid comparison, as the party had been in govt for 13 years - and we'd just had the global financial crash & all its consequences, which made the 2010 result surprisingly good for Labour.

 

With hindsight, maybe the 2015 election result was a forewarning of the Brexit referendum result and a reflection of how dissatisfied with the status quo an awful lot of voters had become.

That argues for a more radical, reforming platform than in 2015....so long as it has credibility and so long as the party is not led by a narrow-minded, incompetent, nasty Stalinist tosser like Corbyn.

 

As a side issue, I do think that a major factor in the 2015 election result was the success of the Tory PR machine in convincing the electorate that austerity was necessary to the extent imposed and that it was the fault of Labour profligacy in govt, not the result of the global crash. From 2008 to 2015, the Tories successfully used that false claim to convince people that Labour were economically incompetent. We can argue about the economic coherence of the platform presented now by McDonnell (which includes some good stuff, but some potential excesses), but Labour in Govt was comparatively competent economically.....and what about austerity and economic competency now, with the Tory leadership contenders promising mass tax & spending giveaways on top of all the extra cost of a potential No Deal Brexit!?

[Foxin_Mad]

40 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

If this is true why were they not elected in 2010 and 2015? Watson would be a similar ticket.

Brown and Miliband

 

were bad leaders although not half as bad or mad as Jezza

 

41 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

As a Labour Party member, I don't disagree with most of what you've said.

 

Hell of a long time since I've heard that Corbyn chant, though, and don't expect to hear it again any time soon - including during any election.

If the Tories haemorrhage votes to the Brexit Party & Lib Dems, I suppose there's a chance that Labour could still win an election with 25% of the vote or whatever - but that would be an absolute travesty, and no mandate for the radical reforms needed.

 

There's a serious chance of Labour ending up in the dustbin of history, as you say. Same applies to the Tories, but that's little consolation. No mass yoof or Remainer vote for Jezza next time & I expect he'll lose a lot more traditional northern voters next time. Little chance of the Tories being quite as repellent as May was in 2017, either....though there's always a chance of Boris doing or saying something truly disgusting and alienating....what times to live in!

 

Corbyn is an incompetent, narrow-minded Stalinist cvnt, who deserves to lose the centre-left vote to other parties. If anyone knows how to hack into my FT account so as to report me to the party for saying that and have me expelled like Campbell, please do so. Can't quite bring myself to quit, but am very close to tearing up my party card & cancelling my direct debit.

 

Whether Watson is the best leadership option, I'm not sure, but at least he's a passable human being and competent politician. Labour actually has quite a number of them....just unfortunately not as party leader or among his key advisers.

There are many good Politicians in Labour, sadly not on the front benches.

 

26 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I take your implied point that a moderate, centre-left platform is not what is required - and 2015 is a valid comparison to make.

I don't think 2010 is a valid comparison, as the party had been in govt for 13 years - and we'd just had the global financial crash & all its consequences, which made the 2010 result surprisingly good for Labour.

 

With hindsight, maybe the 2015 election result was a forewarning of the Brexit referendum result and a reflection of how dissatisfied with the status quo an awful lot of voters had become.

That argues for a more radical, reforming platform than in 2015....so long as it has credibility and so long as the party is not led by a narrow-minded, incompetent, nasty Stalinist tosser like Corbyn.

 

As a side issue, I do think that a major factor in the 2015 election result was the success of the Tory PR machine in convincing the electorate that austerity was necessary to the extent imposed and that it was the fault of Labour profligacy in govt, not the result of the global crash. From 2008 to 2015, the Tories successfully used that false claim to convince people that Labour were economically incompetent. We can argue about the economic coherence of the platform presented now by McDonnell (which includes some good stuff, but some potential excesses), but Labour in Govt was comparatively competent economically.....and what about austerity and economic competency now, with the Tory leadership contenders promising mass tax & spending giveaways on top of all the extra cost of a potential No Deal Brexit!?

I cant agree on the economic competency. Labour started off well in the 2000s but towards the end got reckless, Brown also gave the banks the environment to operate in in which they failed. They definitely made mistakes. They also allowed unprecedented levels of immigration and signed the EU treaty by the back door that eventually paved the way for our departure and Brexit; I feel. Public service was under pressure late 2000s due to widespread immigration , new hospitals and schools were built at phenomenal cost that were not big enough from day one. 

 

At the time we needed to bring our spending under control, really this was done in the best way possible as mass unemployment was avoided, public services are still funded well and funding has increased year on year in most core areas. The reality is they need reform and modernisation which no one will ever dare to admit. There are many many failings since 2010 but an economy has been held together and rebuilt for the most part. Labour even left the famous 'No Money' note which pretty much said it all.

 

There would be an absolute jobs/business haemorrhage under Labours tax, wealth property, land and business seizure plans. This would not ever be good for any public service, I think those who think so called Austerity is bad would be amazed to see the kind of poverty Corbyn's Venezuela style policies would have on the country. I am not a fan of Brexit but the damage caused by a Corbyn Labour government is an absolutely terrifying prospect. 

[ealingfox]

9 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

Brown and Miliband

 

were bad leaders although not half as bad or mad as Jezza

 

There are many good Politicians in Labour, sadly not on the front benches.

 

I cant agree on the economic competency. Labour started off well in the 2000s but towards the end got reckless, Brown also gave the banks the environment to operate in in which they failed. They definitely made mistakes. They also allowed unprecedented levels of immigration and signed the EU treaty by the back door that eventually paved the way for our departure and Brexit; I feel. Public service was under pressure late 2000s due to widespread immigration , new hospitals and schools were built at phenomenal cost that were not big enough from day one. 

 

At the time we needed to bring our spending under control, really this was done in the best way possible as mass unemployment was avoided, public services are still funded well and funding has increased year on year in most core areas. The reality is they need reform and modernisation which no one will ever dare to admit. There are many many failings since 2010 but an economy has been held together and rebuilt for the most part. Labour even left the famous 'No Money' note which pretty much said it all.

 

There would be an absolute jobs/business haemorrhage under Labours tax, wealth property, land and business seizure plans. This would not ever be good for any public service, I think those who think so called Austerity is bad would be amazed to see the kind of poverty Corbyn's Venezuela style policies would have on the country. I am not a fan of Brexit but the damage caused by a Corbyn Labour government is an absolutely terrifying prospect. 

 

This is a reasonable post but you really need to stop parroting this endless Venezuela tripe - it's completely meaningless and has no basis in reality.

[Foxin_Mad]

18 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

This is a reasonable post but you really need to stop parroting this endless Venezuela tripe - it's completely meaningless and has no basis in reality.

I can not agree. The policies Labour and Jezza/McDonnell are pedalling at the minute are very much based on the views of Chavez, the man they congratulated and refuse to condemn, this is socialism in all its glory. Nationalising infrastructure at 'a value determined by Labour', forced workers business ownership, seizing property and land to redistribute to the many. Its an extremely dangerous path and a sure fire way to destroy an economy. 

 

These things end the way these things always end, a elite few socialists milking all the money so Corbo and his nasty cronies (Milne, McLuskey et all). The rest of us will be a whole lot poorer in a grey desolate socialist utopia. The current system isn't perfect but socialism isn't the answer. At least now we have the ability to break the mould and live a life not predetermined by government. 

[Kopfkino]

26 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

This is a reasonable post but you really need to stop parroting this endless Venezuela tripe - it's completely meaningless and has no basis in reality.

A significant Labour policy is to exproriate property for below market value, which country's government is the only government to pursue that same policy in the last 30+ years? 

 

You can make an argument to say it wouldn't be Venezuela extreme or it wouldn't end up anything like that, but it's false to say it has no basis in reality. 

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

 

There are many good Politicians in Labour, sadly not on the front benches.

 

I agree that a fair few are not on the front benches, though some are - Starmer, Thornberry, McDonnell (though I'm sure you won't agree with that last one, at least).

 

Unfortunately, Corbyn & his coterie still seem to mainly control the direction of the party.

 

2 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

 

I cant agree on the economic competency. Labour started off well in the 2000s but towards the end got reckless, Brown also gave the banks the environment to operate in in which they failed. They definitely made mistakes. They also allowed unprecedented levels of immigration and signed the EU treaty by the back door that eventually paved the way for our departure and Brexit; I feel. Public service was under pressure late 2000s due to widespread immigration , new hospitals and schools were built at phenomenal cost that were not big enough from day one. 

 

At the time we needed to bring our spending under control, really this was done in the best way possible as mass unemployment was avoided, public services are still funded well and funding has increased year on year in most core areas. The reality is they need reform and modernisation which no one will ever dare to admit. There are many many failings since 2010 but an economy has been held together and rebuilt for the most part. Labour even left the famous 'No Money' note which pretty much said it all.

 

There would be an absolute jobs/business haemorrhage under Labours tax, wealth property, land and business seizure plans. This would not ever be good for any public service, I think those who think so called Austerity is bad would be amazed to see the kind of poverty Corbyn's Venezuela style policies would have on the country. I am not a fan of Brexit but the damage caused by a Corbyn Labour government is an absolutely terrifying prospect. 

 

 

Some points in reply, after which I'll leave it as we're never likely to agree on much so pointless wasting your time or mine....

 

- The deficit under Labour in 2007 (year before crash, after 10 yrs in govt) was lower than under Major & only slightly higher than under Thatcher. They can be criticised for having a deficit, after 10 years of economic success, but not for being reckless.

- I agree that Brown allowed the banks too deregulated an environment, but so did other nations, notably the US, where the crash started; the UK would still have been hammered due to the US crash, as Europe was - at best, there'd have been a bit less damage if he'd deregulated less.....we're a medium-sized economy, so will always be vulnerable to what happens in the big players: currently US, EU & China

- With hindsight, the level of EU immigration was a mistake (by civil service forecasters as well as politicians), at least without better social, integration, public spending & employment protection measures. High immigration with increasing insecurity of employment, continued low pay & inadequate integration was a toxic combination....most of those issues stem from trends in global capitalism, but Labour could have done more: funded local govt better to cope with influxes, strengthened employment protection/job security, tackled low pay & integration of new arrivals.

- Public services were under terrible pressure in 1997 when Labour took over, with collapsing schools & hospitals. In fact, they didn't spend enough or quickly enough to remedy this initially (should have increased taxes), but then did so, post-2000 & achieved an awful lot of good in eliminating hospital waiting lists, improving school infrastructure, Sure Start etc. The cost under PFI schemes was excessive, though, & a cynical rip-off for future taxpayers via long-term repayments

- I've seen no credible evidence that the strain on hospitals/schools has been caused by immigration or hospitals being too small....other factors like an aging population & under-staffing come in.....& the Tory record has been much worse, due to cuts in relation to growing demand, even if health spending has increased.

- For better or worse, our economy currently depends heavily on migrant labour. Again, that's party because we have an aging population - & partly because we do a poor job at training enough natives for some careers & partly because some jobs are poorly paid and unattractive....hence why immigration has remained high under the Tories. EU immigration has fallen, but non-EU immigration (which govt controls) is as high as ever....& will need to remain so, at least in the short-term - and in the long-term, without major investment in education/training, measures to encourage natives to work in care homes, spud picking, catering or whatever.

- While I don't like Corbyn & agree that he has some cynical, undemocratic tendencies, Labour's economic programme is moderate by European standards, unless you choose to believe the wilder rhetoric & assume they'd nationalise everything immediately; I don't believe that

 

Finally, you mention Venezuela..... We currently have senior Tories openly talking about suspending democracy in this country - though they prefer the quaint term "proroguing parliament". That sounds a lot more like Venezuela or Mussolini's Italy than anything Corbyn is suggesting (and I loathe the bloke). I disagree with you about the balance of risk between Corbyn & Brexit (or No Deal Brexit, specifically): In the hopefully unlikely event that Corbyn did win a majority & try to impose Extreme Left policies, he would soon be either forced to retreat or forced from office by economic/social/democratic pressure....at worst, it would be a short-term crisis (and I think McDonnell, who controls economic policy, is a lot more pragmatic & too shrewd to do anything so stupid). Whereas a No Deal Brexit would not be easily remedied or reversed - it would be a major economic, social and political crisis in the medium to long-term.

 

Anyway, agree to disagree as we clearly have very different political views. 

[Kopfkino]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

While I don't like Corbyn & agree that he has some cynical, undemocratic tendencies, Labour's economic programme is moderate by European standards, unless you choose to believe the wilder rhetoric & assume they'd nationalise everything immediately; I don't believe that

 

 

 

Please do excuse any sneering sarcasm, but please tell me how contravening international law is moderate by European standards. In fact can you find me an OECD country in modern times (I'll expand it from Europe to help you out) where there has been a policy to seize property for (well) below market value or for state to take 10% of any company over a certain size under the guise of employee ownership? I'll help you on the second one, Sweden in the late 70s and 80s did similar during their experiment with Corbynism and it didn't really go very well.

[Foxin_Mad]

18 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

Finally, you mention Venezuela..... We currently have senior Tories openly talking about suspending democracy in this country - though they prefer the quaint term "proroguing parliament". That sounds a lot more like Venezuela or Mussolini's Italy than anything Corbyn is suggesting (and I loathe the bloke). I disagree with you about the balance of risk between Corbyn & Brexit (or No Deal Brexit, specifically): In the hopefully unlikely event that Corbyn did win a majority & try to impose Extreme Left policies, he would soon be either forced to retreat or forced from office by economic/social/democratic pressure....at worst, it would be a short-term crisis (and I think McDonnell, who controls economic policy, is a lot more pragmatic & too shrewd to do anything so stupid). Whereas a No Deal Brexit would not be easily remedied or reversed - it would be a major economic, social and political crisis in the medium to long-term.

 

Anyway, agree to disagree as we clearly have very different political views. 

To be clear I fully agree a no deal Brexit would be bad, and I do not support any of the suggestions made by the Tories to do this.

 

I was previously a Tory voter but I can not agree that what they are currently suggesting is correct for the country economically, I could not vote for them at present or possibly ever again unless they prove me wrong. There is a vague chance that long term it may benefit us but I think the short/medium term pain is far too much. We are talking job losses on a scale not seen for some time. With the large amount of debt this country has I struggle to how this doesn't lead to banking problems.

 

That said a Labour government led by the current lot would be worse, I am not sure on the Characters of Corbyn or McDonnell, I would not trust either of them. McDonnell once got out Mao's red book!  I also think they have slightly worrying anger/hate/envy tendencies they talk often of bringing down, seizure, occupying etc, rebels will be quashed and deselected, they are trying to get the antisemitism Panorama removed from iPlayer (freespeech?!). Milne is a very nasty man and pulls a lot of the strings, as is Len McLuskey and most of the NEC. I am sure they would stop at nothing to push through their agenda. This makes them dangerous and unpredictable, I suspect they would be undemocratic too if it meant getting what they wanted..basically teaching the EVIL RICH. 

 

Again happy to be proved wrong a live in a socialist utopia where we all have free money falling out of our pockets, from trees and nationalised farms producing free food for the many! Schools, hospitals etc funded with the free money building tomorrows future today. Its just never worked, so fail to see why it would now. People are greedy and the greedy ones always get to the top. The other problem is I don't see where all this money comes from?

Edited 15 July 2019 by Foxin_Mad

[Guest MattP]

On 10/07/2019 at 21:27, Izzy said:

@Toddybad doesn't see to post anymore, just reacts to others posts.

 

Not sure if he's banned from posting, but if he does come back on here we also need @MattP back posting again to balance the books 

No ban - just decided to withdraw from GC.

 

Some great posters in here but some are borderline insane now and when the conspiracy theories get going it becomes unreadable. It's worse than Twitter for everyone being a racist or a fascist.

 

Thanks for the kind words though.

[Alf Bentley]

41 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

To be clear I fully agree a no deal Brexit would be bad, and I do not support any of the suggestions made by the Tories to do this.

 

I was previously a Tory voter but I can not agree that what they are currently suggesting is correct for the country economically, I could not vote for them at present or possibly ever again unless they prove me wrong. There is a vague chance that long term it may benefit us but I think the short/medium term pain is far too much. We are talking job losses on a scale not seen for some time. With the large amount of debt this country has I struggle to how this doesn't lead to banking problems.

 

That said a Labour government led by the current lot would be worse, I am not sure on the Characters of Corbyn or McDonnell, I would not trust either of them. McDonnell once got out Mao's red book!  I also think they have slightly worrying anger/hate/envy tendencies they talk often of bringing down, seizure, occupying etc, rebels will be quashed and deselected, they are trying to get the antisemitism Panorama removed from iPlayer (freespeech?!). Milne is a very nasty man and pulls a lot of the strings, as is Len McLuskey and most of the NEC. I am sure they would stop at nothing to push through their agenda. This makes them dangerous and unpredictable, I suspect they would be undemocratic too if it meant getting what they wanted..basically teaching the EVIL RICH. 

 

Again happy to be proved wrong a live in a socialist utopia where we all have free money falling out of our pockets, from trees and nationalised farms producing free food for the many! Schools, hospitals etc funded with the free money building tomorrows future today. Its just never worked, so fail to see why it would now. People are greedy and the greedy ones always get to the top. The other problem is I don't see where all this money comes from?

 

I won't jabber on again but think you're wrong about McDonnell. I might not agree with everything he said (and Mao's red book was meant as a joke) but think he's a pragmatist.

I do agree with you about Milne, McCluskey & much of the NEC, and don't deny that's a problem. But they do not reflect the opinions of most Labour members, voters or MPs - and they can't change that, not quickly at least, probably never.

 

I strongly suspect that Corbyn is unlikely to ever be PM - and even less likely to lead a majority govt. The real problem that we face is the current bunch of extremists who, I repeat, are considering the suspension of democracy. Incredible!

[bovril]

21 minutes ago, MattP said:

No ban - just decided to withdraw from GC.

 

Some great posters in here but some are borderline insane now and when the conspiracy theories get going it becomes unreadable. It's worse than Twitter for everyone being a racist or a fascist.

 

Thanks for the kind words though.

How many times now have you flounced from this thread? Stop being a drama queen and embrace the nuttiness. 

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, bovril said:

How many times now have you flounced from this thread? Stop being a drama queen and embrace the nuttiness. 

It’s not just this thread, the whole forum is nuts.......You don’t know of any safe spaces do you?