Brexit, for once some facts.

[Zlatan]

Zlatan, it's not relevant for you to mention Diane Abbot, simply because you insist that Labour is unelectable. Therefore on your own terms she will never be in any position of authority.

Unless of course you are wrong and Labour is electable.

You can't have it both ways.
.

When she is part of problem its perfectly rational. Diane Abbott , and others like her, are making labour unelectable. That's not wa ting it both ways at all. The way she has been treated is at odds with how Smith and,Champion were and that is totally JC's responsibility.
OG
You seem to.insist on maintaining your animosity ??

 

[oldgroaner]

When she is part of problem its perfectly rational. Diane Abbott , and others like her, are making labour unelectable. That's not wa ting it both ways at all. The way she has been treated is at odds with how Smith and,Champion were and that is totally JC's responsibility.
OG
You seem to.insist on maintaining your animosity ??

Actually my "animosity" is called Morgana and is currently sat peacefully looking out of the caravan window
I don't suppose it has occurred to you but really the most damaging thing for Labour would be to get into power and take the Flak for the Tory disaster AKA Brexit?
Let the makers of this mess sort it out!

 

[Zlatan]

Actually my "animosity" is called Morgana and is currently sat peacefully looking out of the caravan window
I don't suppose it has occurred to you but really the most damaging thing for Labour would be to get into power and take the Flak for the Tory disaster AKA Brexit?
Let the makers of this mess sort it out!

They shoould already be in power and your claim , actually admission, suggesting they are avoiding power at moment actually means we are operating under a one party democracy, which is an anachronism and is exactly why Tory party feel unthreatened . They are in a more omnipotent position than any other time in our history, which no matter how you look at it is not good for our country.
Hope weather is good for yourself and your animosity.

 

[flecc]

When she is part of problem its perfectly rational. Diane Abbott , and others like her, are making labour unelectable. That's not wa ting it both ways at all. The way she has been treated is at odds with how Smith and,Champion were and that is totally JC's responsibility.
OG
You seem to.insist on maintaining your animosity ??

No animosity, I'm just pointing out that you raising Diane Abbot is irrational in the context of Theresa May, because you are wanting it both ways:

If Labour is unelectable as you maintain, she is no more relevant to our discussion than anyone else of our 65 millions population who won't be in parliament.

Diane Abbot can only be relevant if Labour is elected and therefore electable.

If you cannot understand that you are beyond any help I can give.
.

 

[Zlatan]

No animosity, I'm just pointing out that you raising Diane Abbot is irrational in the context of Theresa May, because you are wanting it both ways:

If Labour is unelectable as you maintain, she is no more relevant to our discussion than anyone else of our 65 millions population who won't be in parliament.

Diane Abbot can only be relevant if Labour is elected and therefore electable.

If you cannot understand that you are beyond any help I can give.
.

And so are you if you can not see my point that she is one of main reasons labour are unelectable.
Cure those problems and ofcourse labour are electable.
Your argument is self defeating..kerp Abbott stay out of power...its you wanting it both ways.

 

[tillson]

And so are you if you can not see my point that she is one of main reasons labour are unelectable.
Cure those problems and ofcourse labour are electable.
Your argument is self defeating..kerp Abbott stay out of power...its you wanting it both ways.

I can see your point Zlatan. It is the people within the party who make the party electable or unelectable. If the people appeal to voters, they will get votes. If the people are Diane Abbott, they won’t get votes. It makes a big difference.

 

[flecc]

And so are you if you can not see my point that she is one of main reasons labour are unelectable.

I can see your point but its based on the fallacy that JC and DA are keeping Labour out of power.

Theresa May went to the country at the last general election confident that the population wouldn't support Corbyn and co so would greatly increase her majority. She was wrong as you are, the population did the opposite and removed her majority by swinging to Corbyn's Labour.

My own constituency had always been marginal and swinging to and fro between labour and tory, the tory incumbent in with only 162 votes. We thought we'd swing it and hoped to increase the margin to around a 1000 or so for labour, but were staggered when it was over 10,000, unheard of here. The same happened in a number of places, hence May losing her majority in parliament.

That gave the lie to you saying JC and co are unpopular. Enough of the population clearly don't share your view of JC, so your fundamental premise is flawed.
.

 

[Zlatan]

In

I can see your point but its based on the fallacy that JC and DA are keeping Labour out of power.

Theresa May went to the country at the last general election confident that the population wouldn't support Corbyn and co so would greatly increase her majority. She was wrong as you are, the population did the opposite and removed her majority by swinging to Corbyn's Labour.

My own constituency had always been marginal and swinging to and fro between labour and tory, the tory incumbent in with only 162 votes. We thought we'd swing it and hoped to increase the margin to around a 1000 or so for labour, but were staggered when it was over 10,000, unheard of here. The same happened in a number of places, hence May losing her majority in parliament.

That gave the lie to you saying JC and co are unpopular. Enough of the population clearly don't share your view of JC, so your fundamental premise is flawed.
.

But labour lost last GE flecc, had they not done so the complete make up of country might h a ve changed for better. We would not have bombed Syria, supported Trump and the Brexit negotiations would have taken on a completely different complexion.
We will look back in 10 years and think what a wasted opportunity...and why ? For the sake as such as,Diane Abbott, who unfortunately represents a syndrome most voters hate. That being her success is purely down to ethnicity, she has not risen to height she has on merit. Its just another poor example of positive discrimination, box ticking within labour party and as crass as it sounds people just dont like it.
Its not being racist, its a racist element within labour party which causes such as DA to get where she has. Its wrong, she demonstrates the flaws within current labour. JC demonstrates a failure to reward merit. Champion and,Smith were both well liked capable MPs. He sacked both for demonstrating free speech. He has kept Abbott after finding she has obviously lied. Why ?
Words of wisdom from our shadow home secretary
"In a 1984 interview with the journal of the Labour Committee on Ireland (LCI), when asked if she saw herself as Black British, Abbott replied "No - I would self-define myself just as Black. Though I was born here in London, I couldn't identify as British and anyway most British people don't accept us as British. God! British people can be so racist".[75][76]"
And there's more. Most on Wiki..
Ms Champion sacked for saying we need more dialogue around Asian gangs grooming girls.???

 

[Danidl]

In
But labour lost last GE flecc, had they not done so the complete make up of country might h a ve changed for better. We would not have bombed Syria, supported Trump and the Brexit negotiations would have taken on a completely different complexion.
We will look back in 10 years and think what a wasted opportunity...and why ? For the sake as such as,Diane Abbott, who unfortunately represents a syndrome most voters hate. That being her success is purely down to ethnicity, she has not risen to height she has on merit. Its just another poor example of positive discrimination, box ticking within labour party and as crass as it sounds people just dont like it.
Its not being racist, its a racist element within labour party which causes such as DA to get where she has. Its wrong, she demonstrates the flaws within current labour. JC demonstrates a failure to reward merit. Champion and,Smith were both well liked capable MPs. He sacked both for demonstrating free speech. He has kept Abbott after finding she has obviously lied. Why ?
Words of wisdom from our shadow home secretary
"In a 1984 interview with the journal of the Labour Committee on Ireland (LCI), when asked if she saw herself as Black British, Abbott replied "No - I would self-define myself just as Black. Though I was born here in London, I couldn't identify as British and anyway most British people don't accept us as British. God! British people can be so racist".[75][76]"
And there's more. Most on Wiki..
Ms Champion sacked for saying we need more dialogue around Asian gangs grooming girls.???

Zathlan, both labour and the cons lost the last election in the UK. It was only because of the vagaries of your law about fixed term governments which allowed an accomodation with the DUP to be realised. In other democracies, the entire cabinet would have had to relinquish their places.
I also wonder how many subjects of the UK actually describe themselves as British, rather than Londoner, Welsh, Cornish , Geordie etc. .. and it may well have been that context in which your Ms Abbott made her comments. That building in Westminster is called exactly what... My understanding is it's called the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
However I as an outsider am continually perplexed by that failure of the opposition party to actually oppose. It is the duty of an opposition to hold the government to account ON EVERYTHING.

 

[oldgroaner]

They shoould already be in power and your claim , actually admission, suggesting they are avoiding power at moment actually means we are operating under a one party democracy, which is an anachronism and is exactly why Tory party feel unthreatened . They are in a more omnipotent position than any other time in our history, which no matter how you look at it is not good for our country.
Hope weather is good for yourself and your animosity.

As usual you miss the point and wander off into fantasy.
Brexit cannot be made to be a success by any party and will descredit any party in Power at the time.
Anything else is irrelevant

It is an error of the first magnitude brought about by the Tory party and inflicted on the nation because a small majority made the wrong decision.

All Parties have proved themselves interested in Power regardless of consequences, so really it's like watching a squabble over deckchairs as the Titanic goes down.
And yes, warm weather does suit our cat!

 

[oldgroaner]

and your claim , actually admission, suggesting they are avoiding power at moment

Nice fantasy you have there, I made no such suggestion, did I? merely said that even though it clearly hadn't occurred to them, being held responsible for Brexit was a Poisoned Chalice

 

[Woosh]

Brexit cannot be made to be a success by any party and will descredit any party in Power at the time.
Anything else is irrelevant

Success means different things to different people.
If you only concentrate on economic matters, a soft brexit is going to be successful because it will disentangle our relationship with Europe, a plus in the long run.

 

[oldtom]

The recent, shameful news in regard to deporting many of the 'Windrush' generation and their offspring has been picked up by 'the daily mash'.

They have produced a simple test of 'Britishness' which might be a straight lift from the one prepared by members of the Cabinet and currently in use by immigration officers. This link leads to it if you want to test yourself:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/features/are-you-british-or-have-you-and-your-family-just-lived-and-worked-here-since-1948-20180416147418

On the subject of the Cabinet, how does the one created by May compare to the Canadian Cabinet, populated like this?



There seems to be more than a suspicion of relevance in the construction of the Canadian model!

Tom

 

[oldtom]

it will disentangle our relationship with Europe, a plus in the long run.

Perhaps others will understand what you mean by that but I certainly don't. 48% of the population were content to continue our membership of the EU and that figure would almost certainly be increased significantly were there to be a re-run of the referendum now that we are better informed about the situation.

We are not 'entangled' with the EU - we are simply members of a union, very fair and democratic in its principles and in the application of those across a broad spectrum of of factors which impact on the daily lives and welfare of peoples in 28 sovereign nation states. All those states expressed a desire to be a part of the union - none was coerced!

If you consider that adhering to laws and regulations created in Brussels and being answerable to a European Court of Justice democratically agreed/accepted by all the member states amounts to entanglement, then perhaps you might wish to consider living in a state outside of such entanglement. That would also remove you from the protections provided by the EU, including employment rights, basic human rights, etc.

Tom

 

[flecc]

But labour lost last GE

Which was nothing to do with Jeremy Corbyn or Diane Abbott.

Labour governments and parties of Attlee, Wilson, Callaghan, Smith and Blair were all heavily dependant on the Scottish and Welsh votes and the MPs they returned. Many famous labour figures like Aneurin Bevan and Jim Callaghan were Welsh. Even John Prescott with his fake northern accent is Welsh, born, raised and educated in Cardiff before moving in adulthood to Manchester. And Labour had also always relied on Scottish MPs, Blairs predecessor John Smith was a Scots MP, as was Blair's chancellor and successor Gordon Brown.

The disaster for Labour was devolution. Nationally the SNP were a small fish in a large pond, but with devolution that was reversed and the SNP soon swept into power in the Scottish Assembly and at Westminster by taking Labour's seats. These developments were with the Blairite Labour party of Blair and Brown, nothing to do with Corbyn, who only took over the party 8 years later.

At the time I posted in this forum that this fundamental change would make it very difficult for Labour ever to get in power again, since it left the Westminster constituency very heavily southern Tory biased. But there was worse to come in the form of the Scottish Independence vote. Many Scots who had swung to the SNP were strongly opposed to independence so they swung to the unionist party, the Tories, whose correct name is the Conservative and Unionist Party. That was even worse for Labour, not only losing most of their Scottish MPs but some now becoming Tories.

Yet Labour's bad news still wasn't over, since similar happened with the Welsh Assembly. The rise of Welsh nationalism and a similar backlash as in Scotland meant we have 12 MPs in Westminster who are Tory or Plaid Cymru rather than the Labour they largely had been before devolution.

So, as I've already posted to you several times, in this fundamentally Tory biased national position, Labour cannot get into power on its own merits, no matter who leads. Another Blair couldn't do it, he only won with the overwhelmingly Labour Scottish and Welsh votes which are mostly not there any more.

Labour can now only get there by the Tories failing, and that's what happened at the last General Election when May lost her majority. Her vote just didn't turn out sufficiently as a result of the Tory failings in government.

The Westminster electorate of the UK is now rather like that of the USA, either mildly right wing like the Democrats or very right wing like the Republicans. Here as there, true socialism has no place in enough electoral hearts to achieve power on it's own merits.

The selfish society wins for the foreseeable future.
.

 

[flecc]

There seems to be more than a suspicion of relevance in the construction of the Canadian model!

And a superb leader in the person of Justin Trudeau.
.

 

[oldgroaner]

Success means different things to different people.
If you only concentrate on economic matters, a soft brexit is going to be successful because it will disentangle our relationship with Europe, a plus in the long run.

All we have done is damaged any future influence on the form of the EU as it morphs into a superstate, and we will end up rejoining as a very junior partner.
Also we will end up having to obey their rules, and have no say in forming them.

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

 

[tillson]

The recent, shameful news in regard to deporting many of the 'Windrush' generation and their offspring has been picked up by 'the daily mash'.

They have produced a simple test of 'Britishness' which might be a straight lift from the one prepared by members of the Cabinet and currently in use by immigration officers. This link leads to it if you want to test yourself:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/features/are-you-british-or-have-you-and-your-family-just-lived-and-worked-here-since-1948-20180416147418

On the subject of the Cabinet, how does the one created by May compare to the Canadian Cabinet, populated like this?

View attachment 24275

There seems to be more than a suspicion of relevance in the construction of the Canadian model!

Tom

It will never catch on here. Only appoint barristers, is the way backwards.

 

[oldtom]

Labour had also always relied on Scottish MPs, Blairs predecessor John Smith was a Scots MP, as was Blair's chancellor and successor Gordon Brown.

While I largely agree with your post 'flecc', it may have escaped you or you have simply forgotten but B-liar himself was also a Scot, born in Edinburgh.

As for your closing sentence, sadly I must agree entirely with that.

The selfish society wins for the foreseeable future.

Tom

 

[Woosh]

All we have done is damaged any future influence on the form of the EU as it morphs into a superstate, and we will end up rejoining as a very junior partner.
Also we will end up having to obey their rules, and have no say in forming them.

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

we would only obey the rules if we remain in the single market and those that are will be restricted to the operations of the single market, none of them relate to the future EU army or finance ministry or foreign affairs ministry. That suits me better than the US of E.