The Politics Thread 2019

[leicsmac]

45 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

Oh dear, or it could just be a simple geographical location the western nations, the others being in err the east...…...the left always finding something to make a mountain out of a molehill.

 

Just because you are raised somewhere doesn't mean necessarily they like it or want the best for it. I have seen little evidence from much of the Labour front bench that they are interested in their constituents or nation (mainly Northern who voted for Brexit).

 

Corbyn and McDonnell hate the free market economy often associated with 'the west' or sorry (geographically western nations), and wanted to replace it with a highly unionised, largely nationalised, state/worker owned, high taxation, big government state. He has positioned himself (righty or wrongly) as Anti-Israel, he is Pro-Iran, often appears on state run propaganda channels in Iran/Russia (for a fee). He is friends with Hamas and other dubious organisations. The man has doubted evidence supplied by our own intelligence services or (US or course) in favour of that supplied by Russia, Iran or wherever his next ideological beacon is. He frequently stands against everything this country or the US does whilst equally being supportive of some more questionable regimes. Hypocritical?!

 

I feel it is a bit ridiculous to 'hate' and refuse to trade with a nation based on a few personal preconceptions which may or may not be fully accurate in all cases. At the end of the day a lot of business in the UK is US owned and US funded, still the most powerful nation on earth. It is going to make us a lot more insignificant and all a lot poorer and create a lot more jobless if we decide we are not going to host a US president in our country whether we disapprove of him or not. 

 

I suppose it is better for the UK to trade with Russia, China, Iran and North Korea or course all of those nations have fine upstanding leaders and absolutely no human rights issues whatsoever!? Some European cities have high drug use and slum areas also, should we cut association with them?

 

You talk of creating divide, but the hate and vitriol spouted about 'the right' and Trump supporters is baffling and does also nothing but divide. Surely we are better to engage with our enemies and people we disagree with instead of stomping off and taking our ball home and shouting how much we hate them. Its bizarre! You all took of not wanting a divide on the left, whilst often further marginalising those you disagree with and pushing them further away! Its the same way some of the left talk about the rich as if they are all evil, hardly going to win them over!

 

No country or regime is perfect or successful; fully, nor will it ever be. Some however have a history of causing more inequality and suffering than others and the US and UK are far from the biggest sinners here. 

But, judging by this post, it isn't and they are (in that order), yes?

 

And kindly clear away the strawmen before someone lights a match - no one, least of all I - suggested that the UK trade exclusively with any of the nations you mentioned nor that engaging with our "enemies" and people that we disagree with wasn't a good thing. Indeed, the very idea of "enemies", "us and them" is the thing that I find totally absurd in the first place - not the actions of one side of the other, but the very idea that makes them pick a side in the first place. You'd think that we have enough problems with the environment trying to take us down (and you haven't seen anything yet on that score) without trying to make more in the form of each other.

 

As for the last sentence, that very much depends on who you talk to - I daresay someone in Latin America or in one of the 'Stans that have been subject to the US's foreign policy decisions might have a few words to say about causing inequality and suffering.

[Jon the Hat]

4 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

As HappyHamza points out, there's a big difference....

 

- The current backstop is functionally workable. It's just that it is politically unacceptable to the ERG & DUP - and now to the Govt.

- This leaked report, prepared for the UK Govt, suggests that none of the potential alternatives to the backstop is workable, individually or jointly

 

Johnson's central objection to the WA is the backstop. He's demanded that it be ditched. The EU has made clear that it would only accept that if a workable alternative is put on the table.

The EU does not believe that such a workable alternative exists - after 2 years of debate and joint analysis with the May Govt....hence the backstop.

Johnson has not presented any alternative.....we now see why - because he, too, is being told that there is no workable alternative (apart from a closer EU/UK relationship or checks on trade crossing the Irish Sea).

 

It shows that Johnson's talk of negotiating a deal is bollocks.

He is seeking to manoeuvre towards (a) No Deal; and/or (b) A  general election in which he can gain a majority by whipping up mob hatred against our democratic parliament and against 48%+ of the population.

Checks on crossing the Irish sea will be the final outcome for freight.  Not for people obviously.

[Jon the Hat]

2 hours ago, Finnaldo said:

 

I mean they were born and raised in 'the West', follow an ideology (Socialism) created in 'the West' and serve constituents, who routinely keep them in Parliament, from 'the West'.

 

The idea of 'the West' and therefore of being 'against/hating the West' developed principally as pro-democracy propaganda against Nazi Germany in the Second World War and then as pro-capitalist against the Soviet Union. It's been used since the dissolution of the USSR it's been utilised foremost by Conservatives and then the Far Right (ironically the first group it was used against) to stifle any particularly Socialist or Progressive stance. Genuinely it would be interesting what part of the West you think he hates.

 

In terms of Americans I don't blame him. I find it hard to take seriously a country that's the richest in the world yet has a mass shooting for every day of the year, an ongoing homeless and opioid epidemic and Donald Trump as President. 

 

 

Trump is a twat clearly, but lets not dismiss the positives of being friends with America.  That peace in Europe we all take for granted is underwritten by their money and armed forces.

[Foxin_Mad]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

But, judging by this post, it isn't and they are (in that order), yes?

 

And kindly clear away the strawmen before someone lights a match - no one, least of all I - suggested that the UK trade exclusively with any of the nations you mentioned nor that engaging with our "enemies" and people that we disagree with wasn't a good thing. Indeed, the very idea of "enemies", "us and them" is the thing that I find totally absurd in the first place - not the actions of one side of the other, but the very idea that makes them pick a side in the first place. You'd think that we have enough problems with the environment trying to take us down (and you haven't seen anything yet on that score) without trying to make more in the form of each other.

 

As for the last sentence, that very much depends on who you talk to - I daresay someone in Latin America or in one of the 'Stans that have been subject to the US's foreign policy decisions might have a few words to say about causing inequality and suffering.

I am not specifically saying anyone is a suggesting that per say and there are no 'strawmen'. However, by suggesting we do not allow the president of the US to visit the UK whether we agree or disagree with him, is surely going to cause problems with any potential trade deals and a countries relationship. Labour are pretty much declaring this and many of the left are suggesting ostracization of the US due to their polices. 

 

Again the 'enemies' statement is not my view (I am not the one who has thrown about insults, respectfully neither are you), it is more playing devils advocate wording, however it is certainly possible to see how the strong divides between left and right may cause that to appear the perception (as shows here frequently). Quite honestly again, (not anyone in particular) but this does happen someone calling me evil rich or scum (for others racist, thick etc etc) because I voted Tory (or for others Brexit)on occasion isn't going to make me feel particularly swayed by the other persons views, I would rather have a reasoned dialogue with them. People are entitled to their views, everyone's maybe different, everyone has their reasons for their beliefs and they have merits and pitfalls on all sides, its not as simple as putting people in boxes left and right (particularly in the case of Brexit) I am a remainer and believe strongly in the free market, the EU helps that and I actually believe in less barriers to trade globally, I do believe we need limits on migration - part of that is tacking the issue of why people migrate. 

 

Someone in Latin American or the 'Stans may also need to look closer to home, in some cases the decision of the people who elected their leaders or suffered their leaders in the case of despot dictators. It hard to believe these countries would be much better off if the US hadn't intervened. Of course everyone's view is different.

 

My view is that more socialism isn't really going to solve a lot unless people fundamentally change, which I don't believe they will. 

 

Right now if Labour were a proper remain party led by an actual remain leader maybe toning down some of their policies and scraping the garden tax I could vote for them, when they are in the grips of the Seamus Milne momentum rule its hard to see how anyone can even consider them as an option. 

[Alf Bentley]

57 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

The first part is true enough, which is why it's also a negative point for the Labour bunch, they've said stop no deal in any way possible, but won't back someone else becoming temporary pm. It's the same thing, they want power to the party. To me it seems they've only flopped to remain because the lib dems were eating into their vote share. 

 

As for the second part I have no idea. Even I'd think twice about voting tory (not that it makes any difference in a guaranteed Labour seat) if they axed all the moderates, and I doubt I'd be the only one. It's a fine line winning the Brexit party vote back without alienating everyone else. Much like the line Labour walk with their moderates. 

 

I'm unclear what Labour's ultimate stance on a temporary PM would be, if the Johnson Govt loses a confidence vote. I know they've said Corbyn should have first chance to try to form a temporary govt, which is fair enough as he's leader of the second biggest party. What they'd do if/when Corbyn failed, is less clear - would they then agree to, say, Ken Clarke, Harriet Harman, Yvette Cooper or Oliver Letwin as temporary PM if they could form a majority? They certainly should agree to that - and I'd share your criticism if they didn't.

 

Mind you, for now it seems that the anti-No Deal forces are focusing on legislation, not a confidence vote - and that Boris is focussing on creating a pretext for an immediate general election to seek a 5-year majority based on a divisive People v. Parliament No Deal stance, believing that he can win a majority (possibly correctly, but a massive gamble). Labour's big dilemma might be whether or not they vote for that election - and Boris will need their votes for the required 2/3 majority. My instinct is that Labour should refuse the opportunity, giving the Tories enough rope to hang themselves.....whether Corbyn sees it that way is another matter.....and it could easily cause a big split in Labour ranks.

 

British politics really would be a lot healthier with electoral reform. That way, neither Labour nor the Tories would have to try to cover such a vast range of political opinions: there could be a Left Labour, Pragmatic Labour, Centrist Europhile Tory & Thatcherite Eurosceptic Tory Party, or whatever. Under FPTP, it's too difficult for a party to get MPs elected unless they're the "Big 2" or have a strong regional bias, like the SNP......as the SDP/Lib Dems, UKIP & Change UK have all discovered over the years.

 

Farage has gone awfully quiet in recent months......and he could have a big impact if there is an early election, depending on whether he cosies up to Boris & forms a pact, fights the Tories vigorously or something between....

[Innovindil]

10 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I'm unclear what Labour's ultimate stance on a temporary PM would be, if the Johnson Govt loses a confidence vote. I know they've said Corbyn should have first chance to try to form a temporary govt, which is fair enough as he's leader of the second biggest party. What they'd do if/when Corbyn failed, is less clear - would they then agree to, say, Ken Clarke, Harriet Harman, Yvette Cooper or Oliver Letwin as temporary PM if they could form a majority? They certainly should agree to that - and I'd share your criticism if they didn't.

 

Mind you, for now it seems that the anti-No Deal forces are focusing on legislation, not a confidence vote - and that Boris is focussing on creating a pretext for an immediate general election to seek a 5-year majority based on a divisive People v. Parliament No Deal stance, believing that he can win a majority (possibly correctly, but a massive gamble). Labour's big dilemma might be whether or not they vote for that election - and Boris will need their votes for the required 2/3 majority. My instinct is that Labour should refuse the opportunity, giving the Tories enough rope to hang themselves.....whether Corbyn sees it that way is another matter.....and it could easily cause a big split in Labour ranks.

 

British politics really would be a lot healthier with electoral reform. That way, neither Labour nor the Tories would have to try to cover such a vast range of political opinions: there could be a Left Labour, Pragmatic Labour, Centrist Europhile Tory & Thatcherite Eurosceptic Tory Party, or whatever. Under FPTP, it's too difficult for a party to get MPs elected unless they're the "Big 2" or have a strong regional bias, like the SNP......as the SDP/Lib Dems, UKIP & Change UK have all discovered over the years.

 

Farage has gone awfully quiet in recent months......and he could have a big impact if there is an early election, depending on whether he cosies up to Boris & forms a pact, fights the Tories vigorously or something between....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49552403

 

Corbyn has called for a general election. I'm with you though, I think it's a mistake. As it stands, I'd predict the Brexit party wouldn't oppose tories in close seats. I highly doubt Labour and the lib dems would do the same for each other and aim for a coalition. Boris will be 100% believing he can get a majority as it stands, it's what I'd have my money on right now. 

[Alf Bentley]

27 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Checks on crossing the Irish sea will be the final outcome for freight.  Not for people obviously.

 

Yep, the Common Travel Area, allowing Brits and Irish freedom of movement within the British Isles, seems to be one of the few things firmly agreed. Whether that will create issues with freedom of movement from the continent to the UK via RoI, I've no idea. There'd be few issues re. migration from outside the EU as Ireland isn't in Schengen, either, but the RoI will still be in the Single Market, so Poles, Romanians or whoever will be able to move unhindered there. Could be a back door if there's then an open border with N. Ireland.....

 

The DUP would be up in arms about more checks on trade crossing the Irish Sea. That's utter hypocrisy from the DUP as there are already some checks on food and animals for health reasons, and they're quite happy to have different systems from GB when it suits them (e.g. no gay marriage, severe restrictions on abortion). 

 

Of course, if we do have an election and the parliamentary numbers shift, the DUP might lose the influence they currently enjoy. It's quite easy to imagine Boris, if he won a majority, shafting the DUP and accepting checks on trade crossing the Irish Sea if that allowed him to institute Hard Brexit for Great Britain with no need for the full UK backstop or a hard border....

[Alf Bentley]

6 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49552403

 

Corbyn has called for a general election. I'm with you though, I think it's a mistake. As it stands, I'd predict the Brexit party wouldn't oppose tories in close seats. I highly doubt Labour and the lib dems would do the same for each other and aim for a coalition. Boris will be 100% believing he can get a majority as it stands, it's what I'd have my money on right now. 

 

I broadly agree with that.

 

If Corbyn imagines that he's going to get the sort of Remainer/youth-vote surge that he got in 2017, I think he's sorely mistaken. It sounds as if the Labour leadership line is to support an election but only if it happens before 31st Oct......and it sounds as if Boris will gamble on offering that. However, there are plenty of others within Labour who'd see accepting such an early election as a catastrophic strategic mistake.......who will prevail within Labour, I haven't a clue. There could also be a big rebellion against Corbyn's stance among Labour MPs, torpedoing Boris' plans.....

[Innovindil]

2 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I broadly agree with that.

 

If Corbyn imagines that he's going to get the sort of Remainer/youth-vote surge that he got in 2017, I think he's sorely mistaken. It sounds as if the Labour leadership line is to support an election but only if it happens before 31st Oct......and it sounds as if Boris will gamble on offering that. However, there are plenty of others within Labour who'd see accepting such an early election as a catastrophic strategic mistake.......who will prevail within Labour, I haven't a clue. There could also be a big rebellion against Corbyn's stance among Labour MPs, torpedoing Boris' plans.....

What do you think Boris will do if his plans with no deal are blocked and he can't get a general election through? 

[leicsmac]

31 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

I am not specifically saying anyone is a suggesting that per say and there are no 'strawmen'. However, by suggesting we do not allow the president of the US to visit the UK whether we agree or disagree with him, is surely going to cause problems with any potential trade deals and a countries relationship. Labour are pretty much declaring this and many of the left are suggesting ostracization of the US due to their polices. 

 

Again the 'enemies' statement is not my view (I am not the one who has thrown about insults, respectfully neither are you), it is more playing devils advocate wording, however it is certainly possible to see how the strong divides between left and right may cause that to appear the perception (as shows here frequently). Quite honestly again, (not anyone in particular) but this does happen someone calling me evil rich or scum (for others racist, thick etc etc) because I voted Tory (or for others Brexit)on occasion isn't going to make me feel particularly swayed by the other persons views, I would rather have a reasoned dialogue with them. People are entitled to their views, everyone's maybe different, everyone has their reasons for their beliefs and they have merits and pitfalls on all sides, its not as simple as putting people in boxes left and right (particularly in the case of Brexit) I am a remainer and believe strongly in the free market, the EU helps that and I actually believe in less barriers to trade globally, I do believe we need limits on migration - part of that is tacking the issue of why people migrate. 

 

Someone in Latin American or the 'Stans may also need to look closer to home, in some cases the decision of the people who elected their leaders or suffered their leaders in the case of despot dictators. It hard to believe these countries would be much better off if the US hadn't intervened. Of course everyone's view is different.

 

My view is that more socialism isn't really going to solve a lot unless people fundamentally change, which I don't believe they will. 

 

Right now if Labour were a proper remain party led by an actual remain leader maybe toning down some of their policies and scraping the garden tax I could vote for them, when they are in the grips of the Seamus Milne momentum rule its hard to see how anyone can even consider them as an option. 

Well, that's at least a little more nuanced.

 

I'd agree that the polarisation going on isn't a good thing and more to the point I'm not entirely sure how it's going to stop (though I might add my particular tolerance for views runs out when one expresses an opinion denying someones right to actually exist - though that's more a US polarisation thing than over in the UK, thankfully). 

 

WRT US foreign policy I'm not entirely sure what anyone in the 'Stans or Latin America might have done in order to merit violent regime change beyond the despotic leaders themselves that have popped up time to time (unfortunately the despot to civilian-just-wanting-to-go-about-their-day kill ratio in such adventures is about 10000:1, funny how that happens.) But like you said, everyone's view is different.

[Alf Bentley]

7 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

What do you think Boris will do if his plans with no deal are blocked and he can't get a general election through? 

 

Good question..... maybe propose a no confidence vote in himself and whip all his MPs to vote "no confidence" so as to get an election that way? 

 

Gove suggested that the Govt might just ignore legislation preventing No Deal.....but that would presumably end up in court, and I'm guessing the Govt would lose such a case? 

 

Boris would certainly be in difficult spot politically if things happened as you suggest. But I've a nasty feeling that either the plans to block No Deal will be stymied or that he'll get his 2/3 majority for an election (the SNP have said they'd support it, DK about the Lib Dems.....but he could get a 2/3 majority from the Tories, DUP, SNP & a substantial chunk of Labour MPs, even if many of them opposed it).

[Finnaldo]

2 hours ago, Foxin_Mad said:

Oh dear, or it could just be a simple geographical location the western nations, the others being in err the east...…...the left always finding something to make a mountain out of a molehill.

 

Just because you are raised somewhere doesn't mean necessarily they like it or want the best for it. I have seen little evidence from much of the Labour front bench that they are interested in their constituents or nation (mainly Northern who voted for Brexit).

 

Corbyn and McDonnell hate the free market economy often associated with 'the west' or sorry (geographically western nations), and wanted to replace it with a highly unionised, largely nationalised, state/worker owned, high taxation, big government state. He has positioned himself (righty or wrongly) as Anti-Israel, he is Pro-Iran, often appears on state run propaganda channels in Iran/Russia (for a fee). He is friends with Hamas and other dubious organisations. The man has doubted evidence supplied by our own intelligence services or (US or course) in favour of that supplied by Russia, Iran or wherever his next ideological beacon is. He frequently stands against everything this country or the US does whilst equally being supportive of some more questionable regimes. Hypocritical?!

 

It's not a mountain out a molehill though, is it? Suggesting any left of centre is 'hating the West' is up there with 'Enemies of the People' in stifling debate and completely unhonest. Socialism wasn't invented by Bin Laden and Stalin to destroy Europe and America from the inside, it has a past in European history going back to the 1820s and if it wasn't for those 'anti-west' social parties and pressure movements we'd likely still be working 16 hour days for a tuppence so we could go back to the slums and perhaps buy a loaf of bread, with an enfranchised voting class of about 300,000 landed gentry. If the 'free market economy' is what the West comes down to, then the NHS is anti-west for preventing the medical industry making maximum profits in the UK, and social security nets are anti-West for not encouraging 'worker competition'. This whole idea of 'the West' is purported by the likes of Farage who wants to break down the NHS and introduce an American-style insurance based healthcare system:

 

 

 

Like I said, the concept of 'the West' didn't even exist until the 1930s. The sole use of it is to protect those with vested interest under a veil of anything that could change the status quo being a foreign menace.

 

As for his foreign policy, I'm not much a fan of his stance on it, although I'd also count myself as 'anti-Isael' if you mean in the context of the awful Nationalist government they currently have, I'm in favour of a Two-State solution.

 

Quote

I feel it is a bit ridiculous to 'hate' and refuse to trade with a nation based on a few personal preconceptions which may or may not be fully accurate in all cases. At the end of the day a lot of business in the UK is US owned and US funded, still the most powerful nation on earth. It is going to make us a lot more insignificant and all a lot poorer and create a lot more jobless if we decide we are not going to host a US president in our country whether we disapprove of him or not. 

 

I suppose it is better for the UK to trade with Russia, China, Iran and North Korea or course all of those nations have fine upstanding leaders and absolutely no human rights issues whatsoever!? Some European cities have high drug use and slum areas also, should we cut association with them?

 

There's a few personal preconceptions and there's the fact that America has a massive wealth divide, a rising opioid crisis, a mass shooting level that quite literally levels out to one a day and a race divide that most Americans aren't quite comfortable facing up to (unless they have a tiki torch in hand). These are on a level unparalleled to 'some European cities', it's not comparable at all. I'd much rather see us keep our 'anti-west' institutions like the NHS and social security nets than move to become any closer culturally to the States. 

 

In terms of the US business here, their biggest corporations operate here tax-free, whilst smaller British business are forced to shell out, in true 'free market' fashion. Rockstar games paid no corporation tax in ten years and received £42 million in tax relief based on creating a 'culturally British game', despite being owned by an American company and being set in fictional California:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/29/grand-theft-auto-maker-uk-corporation-tax-rockstar-north-games

 

We'd likely see this only get worse if we moved closer to America.

 

All that said, I doubt under Corbyn we'd see a total isolation of American trading, and I'd put a large sum of money no trading would take place with those countries mentioned. It would likely be business as usual. 

 

Quote

You talk of creating divide, but the hate and vitriol spouted about 'the right' and Trump supporters is baffling and does also nothing but divide. Surely we are better to engage with our enemies and people we disagree with instead of stomping off and taking our ball home and shouting how much we hate them. Its bizarre! You all took of not wanting a divide on the left, whilst often further marginalising those you disagree with and pushing them further away! Its the same way some of the left talk about the rich as if they are all evil, hardly going to win them over!

 

We don't 'all' talk of anything, I have my own opinions separate from other left-leaning folk. This idea of 'the Left' as a monopolitical bloc is another characterisation which doesn't really help conversation. And I have no problem with centrists or moderate conservatives, I've been on here for years, talked to many people much further right than myself and had positive productive discussion. It's only with the rise of the alt-right and Far Right Conservatism and these conspiracies about 'Leftists', 'the Left', 'anti-West'/'anti-Free'. Whenever I make a post I always link my sources, I'm not insulting and I'm always willing to have a meaningful discussion like most left-leaning folk on here. I'm not willing to be framed as some militant Leftist trying to hasten the downfall of European society because I think the trains are better ran under the Government (the Tories actually had a Nationalised rail line under their care after Brown put it under Government control after a contract with National Express collapsed, it returned a profit and had the highest satisfaction ratings going but they reprivatised it because, you know, god forbid the Government successfully Nationalise something)

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nationalised-east-coast-rail-line-returns-209m-to-taxpayers-8866157.html

 

Quote

No country or regime is perfect or successful; fully, nor will it ever be. Some however have a history of causing more inequality and suffering than others and the US and UK are far from the biggest sinners here. 

 

Conversation for another day, especially regarding America, but I'll end this post here.

Edited 2 September 2019 by Finnaldo

[Innovindil]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Good question..... maybe propose a no confidence vote in himself and whip all his MPs to vote "no confidence" so as to get an election that way? 

 

Gove suggested that the Govt might just ignore legislation preventing No Deal.....but that would presumably end up in court, and I'm guessing the Govt would lose such a case? 

 

Boris would certainly be in difficult spot politically if things happened as you suggest. But I've a nasty feeling that either the plans to block No Deal will be stymied or that he'll get his 2/3 majority for an election (the SNP have said they'd support it, DK about the Lib Dems.....but he could get a 2/3 majority from the Tories, DUP, SNP & a substantial chunk of Labour MPs, even if many of them opposed it).

Um? Not sure if I've got the wrong quote or you've got the wrong quote but he said he'd have to wait to see what the legislation said, didn't he? That doesn't suggest to me that he's saying they could ignore it, that suggests to me he doesn't want to talk about something that might not happen. Could be looking through my tory specs though. They would 100% lose in court if they tried to ignore it I think, and even in the political game, I think it would be a disastrous call to make when in a position to win a gen election. 

 

Interesting times ahead, that's for sure. 

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Um? Not sure if I've got the wrong quote or you've got the wrong quote but he said he'd have to wait to see what the legislation said, didn't he? That doesn't suggest to me that he's saying they could ignore it, that suggests to me he doesn't want to talk about something that might not happen. Could be looking through my tory specs though. They would 100% lose in court if they tried to ignore it I think, and even in the political game, I think it would be a disastrous call to make when in a position to win a gen election. 

 

Interesting times ahead, that's for sure. 

 

 

 

Normally a Govt - and any other person - is obliged to abide by the law, regardless of what the law says.

Gove clearly implied that he might not do so, depending on what the law said. 

 

If a policeman asked me whether I planned to kill Mr. X, I reckon he'd take a dim view of me answering: "Well, let's wait and see what he looks like!" 

 

 

[Spiritwalker]

5 hours ago, Foxin_Mad said:

In fairness though it isn't just a 'right wing' thing. Xenophobic maybe but not right wing, there are also Left Wing Xenophobes.

 

Corbyn and McDonnell are two of the biggest leavers out there, a thing many Labour voters seem to forget. They campaigned the last election on leaving the EU and now they want to remain.

 

I don't agree with Brexit myself but to believe these 2 proven liars is just a joke.

 

Its about time the Remainers got savvy, if there is a general election don't waste time voting for a leaver who has changed his mind (his voting record says it all), the Lib Dems are the only consistently remain and proper remain party.  I wouldn't put it past Labour to change their mind when it suits. The Labour front bench are bigger leavers than even Boris, the blind loyalty is baffling. 

I haven't forgotten, the Labour leadership has been a shambles regarding Brexit,

however as I live in a Tory/Labour marginal I will hold my nose if we have a GE

before Brexit. Once this is all done and dusted though my vote will be  going to 

the Lib Dems.

[Foxin_Mad]

45 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

 

It's not a mountain out a molehill though, is it? Suggesting any left of centre is 'hating the West' is up there with 'Enemies of the People' in stifling debate and completely unhonest. Socialism wasn't invented by Bin Laden and Stalin to destroy Europe and America from the inside, it has a past in European history going back to the 1820s and if it wasn't for those 'anti-west' social parties and pressure movements we'd likely still be working 16 hour days for a tuppence so we could go back to the slums and perhaps buy a loaf of bread, with an enfranchised voting class of about 300,000 landed gentry. If the 'free market economy' is what the West comes down to, then the NHS is anti-west for preventing the medical industry making maximum profits in the UK, and social security nets are anti-West for not encouraging 'worker competition'. This whole idea of 'the West' is purported by the likes of Farage who wants to break down the NHS and introduce an American-style insurance based healthcare system:

 

 

 

Like I said, the concept of 'the West' didn't even exist until the 1930s. The sole use of it is to protect those with vested interest under a veil of anything that could change the status quo being a foreign menace.

 

As for his foreign policy, I'm not much a fan of his stance on it, although I'd also count myself as 'anti-Isael' if you mean in the context of the awful Nationalist government they currently have, I'm in favour of a Two-State solution.

 

 

There's a few personal preconceptions and there's the fact that America has a massive wealth divide, a rising opioid crisis, a mass shooting level that quite literally levels out to one a day and a race divide that most Americans aren't quite comfortable facing up to (unless they have a tiki torch in hand). These are on a level unparalleled to 'some European cities', it's not comparable at all. I'd much rather see us keep our 'anti-west' institutions like the NHS and social security nets than move to become any closer culturally to the States. 

 

In terms of the US business here, their biggest corporations operate here tax-free, whilst smaller British business are forced to shell out, in true 'free market' fashion. Rockstar games paid no corporation tax in ten years and received £42 million in tax relief based on creating a 'culturally British game', despite being owned by an American company and being set in fictional California:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/29/grand-theft-auto-maker-uk-corporation-tax-rockstar-north-games

 

We'd likely see this only get worse if we moved closer to America.

 

All that said, I doubt under Corbyn we'd see a total isolation of American trading, and I'd put a large sum of money no trading would take place with those countries mentioned. It would likely be business as usual. 

 

 

We don't 'all' talk of anything, I have my own opinions separate from other left-leaning folk. This idea of 'the Left' as a monopolitical bloc is another characterisation which doesn't really help conversation. And I have no problem with centrists or moderate conservatives, I've been on here for years, talked to many people much further right than myself and had positive productive discussion. It's only with the rise of the alt-right and Far Right Conservatism and these conspiracies about 'Leftists', 'the Left', 'anti-West'/'anti-Free'. Whenever I make a post I always link my sources, I'm not insulting and I'm always willing to have a meaningful discussion like most left-leaning folk on here. I'm not willing to be framed as some militant Leftist trying to hasten the downfall of European society because I think the trains are better ran under the Government (the Tories actually had a Nationalised rail line under their care after Brown put it under Government control after a contract with National Express collapsed, it returned a profit and had the highest satisfaction ratings going but they reprivatised it because, you know, god forbid the Government successfully Nationalise something)

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nationalised-east-coast-rail-line-returns-209m-to-taxpayers-8866157.html

 

 

Conversation for another day, especially regarding America, but I'll end this post here.

Goodness me quite a bit of hyperbole in the first line to be honest, of course the better conditions are all to do with the socialists not anyone else involved with that. At the end of the day facilitating growth and wealth is a way to escape poverty. We need a balance system going to far left or too far right is wrong, I think we can agree on that. My view is that full socialism where you seize private enterprise and 'give it to the workers isn't going to work', its proven not to ala Venezuela. The NHS could benefit from some privatisation if done correctly, I believe the much lauded Scandinavian states have a lot more privatized healthcare than the UK and are a lot more efficient.  A lot of the problem here is no one dares to reform the NHS, times have changed it needs reform. Of course no one dares to do that because its a political tennis ball and point scorer. Some of the social security systems employed in the UK in the past have been bad for aspiration, they have driven generations to living a life on benefits because it was a serious alternative to actually doing a manual job, this was wrong.

 

I too am not a fan of Israel I am not sure why it was positioned where it was, however supporting a recognised terrorist organisation is probably not the best way of doing it, of course he has form with the IRA. Once is a mistake twice/three times a bit silly.

 

The biggest corporations may well operate here tax free (which I agree is a global problem that's needs a global solution), many European companies also operate here tax free. However, they do offer valuable employment and training that might not otherwise be here. The best thing is for people to stop buying from these companies, of course Brits love a bargain, so its unlikely an Amazon/Apple boycott will happen anytime soon. The UK acting alone and taxing US corporations means they will go and they will take their jobs with them to another country with less punitive tax regimes.  

 

The way Corbyn behave I would say that we would lose a lot of American investment in this country, his rhetoric is very damaging to trade relations between the countries. 

 

The East Coast line is still nationalised, it has always been profitable under National Express and Virgin, however the franchise returns were not what was promised by the government and growth was not as expect due to line upgrades promised by rail track and Network rail (government ran) that were not delivered upon. Most of the current problems with the railways are due to government incompetence rather than the franchise runners. I am not opposed to anything being state owned if it is well run, however I am not 100% certain nationalised rail, nationalised utilities or nationalised mail would be as good as or better than we have now. There is incentive these companies have to be half decent to return any kind of profit, nationalised there is no incentive to improve, hence the state BR was in the 1980s. What that article probably doesn't mention is the privatised railway returned more in franchise premiums than it made nationalised. 

 

 

 

 

 

[HappyHamza]

Things getting even more bizarre today. 2 leaks I've seen:

 

1- it's being leaked that the government are saying they've got a legal text to put to the eu which they will disclose at the appropriate time. 

 

2- it was then leaked that this text is identical to the old one but they've simply deleted mention of the backstop.

 

Tbh given that every other recent leak has come true, I'm tempted to think this is highly believable. 

Edited 2 September 2019 by HappyHamza

[yorkie1999]

Sounds like a football crowd in the background!

[Voll Blau]

2 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Sounds like a football crowd in the background!

Spent that whole thing trying to work out what they were chanting.

[urban.spaceman]

Just now, Voll Blau said:

Spent that whole thing trying to work out what they were chanting.

"We're the left side we're the left side we're the left side over here."

[yorkie1999]

3 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

Spent that whole thing trying to work out what they were chanting.

Boris Johnson

Boris Johnson

we don't need you

we've got soyuncu

And you're a massive cock.

 

Edited 2 September 2019 by yorkie1999

[Voll Blau]

People say it's silent there most of the time these days, but you've got to admire the atmosphere on those famous Whitehall nights.

[stripeyfox]

15 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Sounds like a football crowd in the background!

we need to sign them up. They're louder then our lot...

[HappyHamza]

What possessed boris to give a speech there with the crowd outside?

 

And does the no circumstances he'd ask for a delay mean he'd refuse to follow the law, if one was brought in, or he'd just go straight to election?

 

The nonsense about why he needs a queens speech is embarrassing. 

 

Tbh after a decade of austerity which bojo has cancelled in minutes, coupled with his blatant anti -democratic stance (JRM today actually said we can't have another referendum because it will cancel the result of the first) means that imo leavers should support the brexit party because there is nobody in Britain that should be supporting the way bojo is behaving - whether you're left or right, remainer or leaver.

[Legend_in_blue]

Having listened to that, amongst the stop the coup chanting, Bojo is an embarrassment.  I can't figure out why he'd make some sort of statement, the logic, or lack of it, is baffling.

 

As I've said before, he'll go down as the shortest reigning PM of all time and that view hasn't changed.  Despite this, I really don't see where we're going, Corbyn is even worse.  How he could be possibly worse than the shower that are in is beyond comprehension.  The lot of 'em need to be outed.  Utterly useless.  

 

I won't be voting for either in an election.  This two party system stinks.  It's the either me or him argument and I can't stand either at the minute.

 

Locally, how many people are going to go Brexit Party in a GE following up the Euro elections.  I think this will have the greatest bearing on any result - Farage must be loving it.