Brexit, for once some facts.

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,152
30,567
it may have escaped you or you have simply forgotten but B-liar himself was also a Scot, born in Edinburgh.
Indeed Tom, I took it as read from his appointing so many Scots to government,even his minister for London being a Scot!

But it's worth pointing it out for those who don't know.
.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: oldtom and robdon

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,152
30,567
the rules - - - 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.
Instead we'll just be tied to supporting the US forces and falling into line with US foreign policy.

While still paying for EU access.
.
 

Woosh

Trade Member
May 19, 2012
20,323
16,849
Southend on Sea
wooshbikes.co.uk
Instead we'll just be tied to supporting the US forces and falling into line with US foreign policy.

While still paying for EU access.
.
I can't see JC toeing US foreign policy if he wins.
As for paying into the EU budget, it's good VFM.
 

Zlatan

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 26, 2016
8,086
4,290
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.
.
Good post flecc. Cant disagree with any of that. End result is same, we have Tories in power for foreseeable future....either way..
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,152
30,567
Good post flecc. Cant disagree with any of that. End result is same, we have Tories in power for foreseeable future....either way..
Indeed. As you've posted before we need a middle of the road party as an alternative to the Tories. Blair's looked like that at first but was far too close to Toryism and big business to be acceptable for many. The centrist Liberals have lost all credibility.

The problem is that it's so difficult to set up a new viable party with our first past the post system. The so called "Gang of Four", centre-right MPs, tried that when they set up the SDLP as a true centrist party.

But it needed proportional representation to get anywhere, which is why the main two parties will never enable that. So we're indefinitely stuck with the political mess we have now.
.
 

Woosh

Trade Member
May 19, 2012
20,323
16,849
Southend on Sea
wooshbikes.co.uk
Big if though, per this previous post. The Tories have to lose the next GE for Corbyn to get into power.
.
4 years is a long time. Whether JC will be there to fight it or not, more people would want a change of government.
 

Zlatan

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 26, 2016
8,086
4,290
Reading about Macron's rise to power makes interesting reading. There are close parallels to the polarisation in our country to that France was experiencing.Perhaps JC should be having a good look at Macron's policies and way of working..
This quote is a small section of an excellent article about Macron and wether a similar event could happen here. ( it would have to be from within the current parties here)

"Even if the Tories collapse into internecine rows, they will not let go easily. To win, Labour will need to enlist the Macron constituency in Britain (as they already have in London) and then aim to build a variant of the Nordic model too – and to avoid the economic harakiri of hard Brexit.

European economies and societies share much. The British constitution and voting system do not allow a new party to do what En Marche! did. But the same forces exist. Get it wrong in government and Labour could be in the same place as France’s socialists. If Corbyn wants to consolidate his position, it would be a good idea not to make the same mistakes as them."

Lifted from Times online.
Interestingly Macron is planning on spending 50% of GDP on welfare type projects. JC is looking at best 40%..( Not sure of figure for tories)
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,152
30,567
JC is looking at best 40%..( Not sure of figure for tories)
They'll be looking to cut by 40%. :(

As you posted, our constitution won't allow a new party or even JC to follow Macron. Every previous attempt has failed. Without proportional representation we just can't adopt the best methods of the EU countries. Basically our political leaders and parties are trapped in a straight jacket of our own making.
.
 

Zlatan

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 26, 2016
8,086
4,290
They'll be looking to cut by 40%. :(

As you posted, our constitution won't allow a new party or even JC to follow Macron. Every previous attempt has failed. Without proportional representation we just can't adopt the best methods of the EU countries. Basically our political leaders and parties are trapped in a straight jacket of our own making.
.
Yes, I can see our system wouldn't allow a new party ( En Marche) but cant see why JC ( or who ever, even a fair minded Tory) adopt some of Macron's policies. ( ie Business reform but with higher incentive for work etc etc His " manifesto" does make interesting reading. Dont forget its not long at all since French establishment were saying Macron would never succeed. He seems rather a whizz kid with media ( which he has connections to) He banned any form of nepotism, but ironically tried to get a job for his wife ( but backed down)
He also told Putin months ago he,d bomb Syria if Chemical weapons were used again. He also grumbled at Putin about Russia's use of media for propoganda. He does seem everything our politicians are not, but he has media on his side.???
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,152
30,567
Yes, I can see our system wouldn't allow a new party ( En Marche) but cant see why JC ( or who ever, even a fair minded Tory) adopt some of Macron's policies. ( ie Business reform but with higher incentive for work etc etc His " manifesto" does make interesting reading. Dont forget its not long at all since French establishment were saying Macron would never succeed. He seems rather a whizz kid with media ( which he has connections to) He banned any form of nepotism, but ironically tried to get a job for his wife ( but backed down)
He also told Putin months ago he,d bomb Syria if Chemical weapons were used again. He also grumbled at Putin about Russia's use of media for propoganda. He does seem everything our politicians are not, but he has media on his side.???
He is a politician, and bright new entrants are often found to be lacking later.

I'm reserving judgment on him until I see some results. So far it's been little other than talk and some cracks have been showing.

The big difference for JC is that the media will do him down whatever he does.
.
 

Zlatan

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 26, 2016
8,086
4,290
He is a politician, and bright new entrants are often found to be lacking later.

I'm reserving judgment on him until I see some results. So far it's been little other than talk and some cracks have been showing.

The big difference for JC is that the media will do him down whatever he does.
.
Fair point. Its not all been sunshine and roses for Macron. He,s made some enemies in defence and previous alignments.
I didn't realise he,d worked for Rothschild and whilst there made £3 million...no wonder he turned his back on socialism.
But so far..so good...apart from Syria...
It is thought he is sorting France to be more competitive in most fields in future ...and reducing social division, which Tories seem to think is mutually exclusive.
But, he,s in power...! Always a bonus if you want to achieve something..
 
  • Agree
Reactions: flecc

oldgroaner

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 15, 2015
23,461
32,613
80
From the Express
"
World War 3: Theresa May BLASTS RUSSIA for SPREADING LIES in Britain after Syria attack
THERESA May has blasted Russia for spreading lies across Britain with the use of cyber technologies following the recent attack in Syria that engulfed nations across the globe in fears of World War 3.

This is intolerable! how dare they do what we expect to get from the Daily Expess, The Telegraph, Sun and the daily mail?
Here's the Express for example

The Daily Mail


How do these Propaganda Rags Qualify as "Newspapers of a Free Press"?

 
Last edited:

Advertisers