Like the Tyne Bridge being a practice for the Sydney Harbour Bridge?
Last edited:
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
Dont forget the Humber Bridge. Connects nowhere to next to nowhere.Looks impressive tho.
I only have trivial problems? F*** you comes to mind. You have no idea.
You won't get far dealing with them with the attitude of ignore and don't care you propose.
Last edited:
I went across and back visiting my daughter in Cleethorpes yesterday, traffic was very light indeed, more people walking than in cars.
You remind me, one of the good things that the political people managed this year was ending tolls on the Cleddau bridge. The route avoiding the bridge adds up to 28 miles so could be very much worth it, but it rankled when the second Severn bridge became toll-free but this much older, and shorter, bridge retained tolls.
Last edited:
Grayson Perry says Ed Miliband should NOT lead Labour's probe
The Turner winning ceramicist Grayson Perry delivered an acute and sharp-eyed diagnosis of Labour's failings after he was invited to guest-edit BBC Radio Four's Today programme.
He's a chump, but of course this is the Daily Mail again. Here's one of the things Grayson said:He makes some good points.Grayson Perry says Ed Miliband should NOT lead Labour's probe
The Turner winning ceramicist Grayson Perry delivered an acute and sharp-eyed diagnosis of Labour's failings after he was invited to guest-edit BBC Radio Four's Today programme.mol.im
"Only then could it reconnect with the centrist voters who are Left-wing."
He's an idiot, if they are centrist they are not left wing.
Labour was founded to be a left wing Socialist party and was at its greatest when being that. If that doesn't get them elected now, that's fine, it's just like all the other parties and independents who aren't elected. That's what democracy means, choice.
Grayson and all the others wanting a centrist party should vote for the one they've got and always have had, the Lib Dems. If Grayson and all the Corbyn critics wanting to be centrist had voted Lib Dem they'd be the large opposition in parliament, problem solved. But it seems the Corbyn critics are too stupid to realise that simple fact, so they continue to howl at the moon.
We don't need two centrist parties and no left wing one, that just deprives people of choice and isn't democracy.
.
Sorry Flecc you are wrong. In your scenario if the centrist party gets power there is still no representation of left wing. The Labour party needs to encompass the wider ideology of both left wing snd centrist views. It should not be one or other it should be both. It was in Wilsons day and to a lesser extent even in Atllee's and since both those times country has moved more centrist anyhow just at a time when Labour party has gone other way. There has never been a time when labour was so dominated by Unions, no union leader has had sway over party leader in fashion of McClusky.
And, lets assume you are correct, it actually spells demise of Labour and the left.
Why cant labour party unite behind a centrist(left leaning) leader and represent views of full spectrum of socialist views. Only thing stopping that is the left's dogma. Thats your view of labour, it isnt mine and it isnt the countries'.
No Zlatan, you are wrong. The LibDems and their former Liberal incarnations have always represented centre and left of centre views. In Blair's time they were certainly more left than he ever was. Don't forget that their modern Liberal incarnation was born out of Labour, when the "gang of four" left the Labour party/ and formed the Social Democrat Party (SDP), later joined by some 20 other labour MPs.
They later merged with the Liberals to form today's LibDems, which is therefore Liberal and moderate Labour in views.
Just what you and Grayson are calling for, only you don't seem to realise it.
Please also read the first paragraph on this link.
It shows what happens to Labour breakaway MPs who want the party to go more centrist. The end up becoming Liberal anyway.
.
A pink Tory might be fine, we have what could prove to be darkest blue since Thatcher.
The route you and Labour party seem to want will simply keep Labour out of power for another generation, perhsps indefinitely or at least until they realise they must unite under one roof to ever get chance of sitting under a roof in Downing street.
Your argument only makes sense to those in agreement with the dogma within Labour now. The voting public dont want that Labour, it either changes or sinks into oblivion but as you say on great idealistic policies.
And, to be honest Flecc, your attitude towards Perry simply reinforces his view. You disagree with him, so he is an idiot. Not left wing enough. You simply demonstrate the very intolerance typical of our left today.
I havent much time for him either but he is talking sense.
Let's put it this way, there is little point in simply duplicating any version of the Conservative party, it has proved completely inept in every way with it's final output being the Brexit debacle.
We shall see in the very near future whether it is capable of making Brexit work.
If it fails Labour will be back warts and all, if it doesn't then perhaps something in the nature of New Labour, which was a proven failure too will make a come back.
We really need shut of them all and something radically different, all present political parties (includins Farages pension fund) have been universal failures.
It wont though OG. Labour will never be relected without its Attlee counterpart. Labour have learnt nothing from either this episode or the downfall of Attlee. Going back all those years it was a left wing faction led by Bevan (The Bevanites as opposed to the Corbynites) that led to Labour losing their massive majority. Had Bevan been leader post War we would probably not had that labour government introducing the reforms ut did. We have the equivalent of a Bevanite labour now. We need an Attlee, a McDonald or even a Wilson. The Bevans and Corbyns should be in there but not leading.
Labour party must change back to its tolerant, broad church. Not the union dominated one we now have.
We should not be talking of a need for country to face a catastrophe for Labour to stand a chance. They should be a viable alternative under any situation, good or bad.
You are saying Tories have to almost destroy country for Labour to even stand a chance. That says lots about Labour today.
Besides, no matter how bad Tories are or do actually changes nothing about Labours unelectability. Country doesn't want Corbyn's type of Labour.
Last edited:
But neither he nor you are speaking sense.
Why do you want Labour to change into what already exists? Just vote for what you say you want, the centre-left LibDem party.
Labour can't be changed anyway, as I showed with the gang of four and their followers who failed. And as Blair showed with New Labour, which also failed. To use your own words from previous posts, there's no point in repeating failure.
Your recipe for Labour is that they must move into Blair's centrist Tory leaning territory to get power, since there's no point in not getting power. Presumably your message to the LibDems is the same, since they aren't getting into power? And the same message for all others who don't get into power?
That ends up with them all being the same, effectively like the way China and Russia are ruled, with a choice of one.
Might as well go for dictatorship.
.