Labour's death throes: fury as party plans to use members' cash to block them from voting | Politics | The National
I can't see the labour party surviving the blairites clarion calls to lie to the electorate so we get elected and then we can do good things. IMO the main reason labour lose seats is becuse they areseen as a bunch of lying self serving toerags. At least the tories make no secret about being a bunch of self serving hypicritical ****s. Better an honest liar and crook than a hypicritical one. It says a lot that the tories are the main oppostion to the tories in in scotland despite having only one MP..
The end of labour?
The end of labour?
It is like the party has a death wish. If Corbyn wins, what next ?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
The end of labour?
I found this site by accident when looking on the web for information on the shooting of a carer in the US. I quite like the joint. May stick around here and there.
It really is strange to see the demise of the Labour party, when elections, more or less, have been a two horse race with the Tories and historically boasted some of the countries finest politicians.
I do believe Labour is finished and i don't believe, they can come back from this downward spiral in the near future. What exactly was the defining moment that the downward spiral was kick started, could be any number of reasons. For me, i would say that the defining moment began in 2003 with the invasion of Iraq, although the mood of the country seemed to support the decision. When it unfolded that Iraq probably had no WMD's and the country had been duped, which saw our military go to war, perception of the Labour party was damaging. The delay on releasing the Chilcot report until only very recently, brought about the public suspicion of Blair and the Labour party. Then you have the accusations of being anti semitic along with those laying the blame of atrocities in Europe, on open door immigration thanks to Labour. Heavy losses in Scotland also contributed. Blaming Corbyn for the decline of the party, i suspect is a game plan, seeing how scapegoats have been readily used in the past, but i don't believe it's down to him. Internal politics is always destructive and it appears of late, that the party has split in two. Whoever wins th leadership challenge, will have the monumental task of reuniting the sides. If Corbyn wins, there could see a revolt with Labour rebels and more resignations.
It really is strange to see the demise of the Labour party, when elections, more or less, have been a two horse race with the Tories and historically boasted some of the countries finest politicians.
I do believe Labour is finished and i don't believe, they can come back from this downward spiral in the near future. What exactly was the defining moment that the downward spiral was kick started, could be any number of reasons. For me, i would say that the defining moment began in 2003 with the invasion of Iraq, although the mood of the country seemed to support the decision. When it unfolded that Iraq probably had no WMD's and the country had been duped, which saw our military go to war, perception of the Labour party was damaging. The delay on releasing the Chilcot report until only very recently, brought about the public suspicion of Blair and the Labour party. Then you have the accusations of being anti semitic along with those laying the blame of atrocities in Europe, on open door immigration thanks to Labour. Heavy losses in Scotland also contributed. Blaming Corbyn for the decline of the party, i suspect is a game plan, seeing how scapegoats have been readily used in the past, but i don't believe it's down to him. Internal politics is always destructive and it appears of late, that the party has split in two. Whoever wins th leadership challenge, will have the monumental task of reuniting the sides. If Corbyn wins, there could see a revolt with Labour rebels and more resignations.
The end of labour?
@Momus If you are going to stick around, go to Introductions and introduce your blooming self, so we can all get the measure of you.....please.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
magentaflame
- Posts: 3007
- Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:11 pm
- Location: Victoria, Australia
The end of labour?
Isnt it spelt 'Labor' ?
Nevermind i looked it up. I would have though it would be spelt the same as here.
Nevermind i looked it up. I would have though it would be spelt the same as here.
The 'radical' left just wants everyone to have food, shelter, healthcare, education and a living wage. Man that's radical!....ooooohhhh Scary!
The end of labour?
Bruv;1499811 wrote: @Momus If you are going to stick around, go to Introductions and introduce your blooming self, so we can all get the measure of you.....please.
I didn't realize that was a prerequisite in posting here.
I didn't realize that was a prerequisite in posting here.
The end of labour?
magentaflame;1499813 wrote: Isnt it spelt 'Labor' ?
Nevermind i looked it up. I would have though it would be spelt the same as here.
NO NO NO ......thats an American version......saves em time dropping the u.
Nevermind i looked it up. I would have though it would be spelt the same as here.
NO NO NO ......thats an American version......saves em time dropping the u.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
The end of labour?
Momus;1499816 wrote: I didn't realize that was a prerequisite in posting here.
Not a prerequisite no, just the normal route.
If you want to remain the mystery man.......carry on as you are.
Not a prerequisite no, just the normal route.
If you want to remain the mystery man.......carry on as you are.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
magentaflame
- Posts: 3007
- Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:11 pm
- Location: Victoria, Australia
The end of labour?
Bruv;1499819 wrote: NO NO NO ......thats an American version......saves em time dropping the u.
Thats what i thought its the only time i spell labour as labor.....but it turns out its a brand name. Which is weird because like in England theyre supposed to represent the worker
Thats what i thought its the only time i spell labour as labor.....but it turns out its a brand name. Which is weird because like in England theyre supposed to represent the worker
The 'radical' left just wants everyone to have food, shelter, healthcare, education and a living wage. Man that's radical!....ooooohhhh Scary!
The end of labour?
Early American Settlers weren't on the whole, too up on literacy, so much of the Americanised spelling became phonetic - the same as with Colour, for instance - the roots, of course, being in the French.
As for Labour being finished - I couldn't disagree more. The Membership has never been higher. Corbyn has inspired thousands of people, and continues to do so, by being the breed of Politician that the Public yearn for. A man of principle & honesty. The PLP have tried their best to avoid the continuing membership of his supporters by increasing the fee they have to pay in order to qualify to vote for him as Leader, but the Membership continues to grow.
In the main, the press is very Right Wing biased - that much is pretty much taken as red (pardon the pun), so they are the ones who are constantly telling us about the division in the party. Well, as a Party Member myself, I see no such division. The vast majority are behind Corbyn. In my opinion, Owen Smith & his cronies don't even belong in the Party. They are no more than Tories. If anything they should start up a new "Tory-Lite Party" & form a coalition with the Tories. After all, it wouldn't be without precedent. Remember the SDP, later the SDLP, which I believe went on to be Liberal Democrats - who have now also pretty much drifted into obscurity as well.
In my opinion, when the election eventually comes about, Corbyn will, quite rightly, be returned to his position as Party Leader, and quite likely with an even bigger mandate than his previous record breaking one.
As for Labour being finished - I couldn't disagree more. The Membership has never been higher. Corbyn has inspired thousands of people, and continues to do so, by being the breed of Politician that the Public yearn for. A man of principle & honesty. The PLP have tried their best to avoid the continuing membership of his supporters by increasing the fee they have to pay in order to qualify to vote for him as Leader, but the Membership continues to grow.
In the main, the press is very Right Wing biased - that much is pretty much taken as red (pardon the pun), so they are the ones who are constantly telling us about the division in the party. Well, as a Party Member myself, I see no such division. The vast majority are behind Corbyn. In my opinion, Owen Smith & his cronies don't even belong in the Party. They are no more than Tories. If anything they should start up a new "Tory-Lite Party" & form a coalition with the Tories. After all, it wouldn't be without precedent. Remember the SDP, later the SDLP, which I believe went on to be Liberal Democrats - who have now also pretty much drifted into obscurity as well.
In my opinion, when the election eventually comes about, Corbyn will, quite rightly, be returned to his position as Party Leader, and quite likely with an even bigger mandate than his previous record breaking one.
The end of labour?
I would like to see corbyn win and I think he probably will. The actions of the PLP say a lot about what kind of people they are - tell lies to get elected and then we can get good things done and then they wonder why no one trusts them oh and let's use party subscriptions to pay for legal challenges to prevent members voting can't have the peasants thinking they have opinions that matter can we.
He might turn the party round but not quickly and the tories will win at elections as the least unpopular party people to vote for and the labour party will disintegrate in to internecine squabbling they love so much.
He might turn the party round but not quickly and the tories will win at elections as the least unpopular party people to vote for and the labour party will disintegrate in to internecine squabbling they love so much.
The end of labour?
Owen Jones is a supporter of Corbyn, as I am, but I can't see the party surviving if the membership vote for a leader that the Parliamentary Labour party will not work with.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
The end of labour?
The idea that Labour can win a general election in 2020 is far fetched. Although the SNP have lost some of the momentum of late, the reality of Labour recovering the losses from the 2015 parliamentary elections, is going to need something of a miracle and the next four years won't be enough time to get back those seats that were lost in Scotland. In Wales, a Labour stronghold, they slid backwards in the assembly elections, with ukip and Plaid Cymru making gains. With the new boundary changes, the amount of Welsh seats has been cut from 40 to 30. For Labour to win a clear majority in 2020, they would need to secure at least a 10 % swing over the Tories, and gain at least 60 seats in England including those that they have never won prior.
The end of labour?
Bruv;1499948 wrote: Owen Jones is a supporter of Corbyn, as I am, but I can't see the party surviving if the membership vote for a leader that the Parliamentary Labour party will not work with.
Not in it's current form. In scotland it was the blair years that started the terminal decline in membership and support. Maybe we just have less tolerance of smarmy crooks. On the other hand gordon brown sems to be still popular so maybe bumbling delusional idiots have appeal.
Not in it's current form. In scotland it was the blair years that started the terminal decline in membership and support. Maybe we just have less tolerance of smarmy crooks. On the other hand gordon brown sems to be still popular so maybe bumbling delusional idiots have appeal.
The end of labour?
When Corbyn wins (as I doubt anyone has any real doubts that he will), I think the first order of the day should be to start disciplinary actions against those who started all this trouble in the first place. Of course, they can't take away their M.P. status, but they can remove their affiliation to the Labour Party, and remove their potential candidacy for re-election in the future. They have done more to try to divide the Party than the Tories ever did. Anyone who refuses to support a democratically elected Leader of the Party shouldn't be in the Commons at all.
It is an irrefutable fact that Corbyn has done more to rally support for the Party than any other Leader before him, with a record Party Membership. That sounds like Leadership to me.
Furthermore, daft as it may seem, this isn't even a question of whether or not Labour can win the next General Election or not. That's not going to be for up to 4 years away. This election is happening now. It's an internal election for paid up Party Members, and it's for who they want to be their Leader & Party Representative. It is not the place for a tiny minority of less than 1% of the Party Membership to decide whether that choice is best suited for the post or not. That's why we have such elections. It's as if there were a National Referendum & despite the majority of the country voting one way, a decision is made to say that the public voted the wrong way, so the result of that referendum should be overturned - oh - I forgot - that's already one of Owen Smith's pledges - to overturn the result of the EU Referendum.
It's like the shareholders of a company electing a CEO then, as a direct result having the value of the company skyrocket with more & more shareholders investing in the company. The cost of shares goes up & still investor come to invest. Then, the Departmental Managers of the Board Room decide that their positions on the board aren't as powerful as they once were & decide they want one of their own number back in charge. They then decide to put one of their own forward as a challenger, while attempting to disqualify the current CEO from the shareholders being allowed to confirm his status. When this fails they then try to make it so that all the investors who bought their shares after their takeover bid aren't allowed to have a say in retaining the CEO that inspired them to invest in the company in the first place.
The Departmental Managers know that their places in the Board Room are history, unless their mate takes over, so they jump before they're pushed & resign from the Board.
It is an irrefutable fact that Corbyn has done more to rally support for the Party than any other Leader before him, with a record Party Membership. That sounds like Leadership to me.
Furthermore, daft as it may seem, this isn't even a question of whether or not Labour can win the next General Election or not. That's not going to be for up to 4 years away. This election is happening now. It's an internal election for paid up Party Members, and it's for who they want to be their Leader & Party Representative. It is not the place for a tiny minority of less than 1% of the Party Membership to decide whether that choice is best suited for the post or not. That's why we have such elections. It's as if there were a National Referendum & despite the majority of the country voting one way, a decision is made to say that the public voted the wrong way, so the result of that referendum should be overturned - oh - I forgot - that's already one of Owen Smith's pledges - to overturn the result of the EU Referendum.
It's like the shareholders of a company electing a CEO then, as a direct result having the value of the company skyrocket with more & more shareholders investing in the company. The cost of shares goes up & still investor come to invest. Then, the Departmental Managers of the Board Room decide that their positions on the board aren't as powerful as they once were & decide they want one of their own number back in charge. They then decide to put one of their own forward as a challenger, while attempting to disqualify the current CEO from the shareholders being allowed to confirm his status. When this fails they then try to make it so that all the investors who bought their shares after their takeover bid aren't allowed to have a say in retaining the CEO that inspired them to invest in the company in the first place.
The Departmental Managers know that their places in the Board Room are history, unless their mate takes over, so they jump before they're pushed & resign from the Board.
The end of labour?
Think I got my Owen Jones and my Owen Smiths mixed up.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
The end of labour?
FourPart;1499983 wrote: When Corbyn wins (as I doubt anyone has any real doubts that he will), I think the first order of the day should be to start disciplinary actions against those who started all this trouble in the first place. Of course, they can't take away their M.P. status, but they can remove their affiliation to the Labour Party, and remove their potential candidacy for re-election in the future. They have done more to try to divide the Party than the Tories ever did. Anyone who refuses to support a democratically elected Leader of the Party shouldn't be in the Commons at all.
I would imagine that within NEC rules under party constitution, that the legal ramifications of expelling rebel MP's simply for being opposed to the current leader would become a minefield that would bring further splits and damage to the party.
Any party has the right to expel a member even if he is an MP, providing he has breached the code of conduct laid out in the party constitution, but to expel them in their tens, simply because they are opposed to the current leadership, is wholly undemocratic, and ridiculous. What you would be left with after their expulsions, is a totalitarian dictatorship within the party.
Which is why, i am assuming that Corbyn right now is seeking the support of those rebel MP's and not threatening expulsion.
I would imagine that within NEC rules under party constitution, that the legal ramifications of expelling rebel MP's simply for being opposed to the current leader would become a minefield that would bring further splits and damage to the party.
Any party has the right to expel a member even if he is an MP, providing he has breached the code of conduct laid out in the party constitution, but to expel them in their tens, simply because they are opposed to the current leadership, is wholly undemocratic, and ridiculous. What you would be left with after their expulsions, is a totalitarian dictatorship within the party.
Which is why, i am assuming that Corbyn right now is seeking the support of those rebel MP's and not threatening expulsion.
The end of labour?
Well he won, be interesting to see what happens next whether some socialist policies will do the trick or not. Maybe once people fell the effects of a right wing tory government at full throttle and it dawns on them brexit means our economy going down the toilet and it was all due to tory infighting but I'm not holding my breath. I know brexit supporters that still think ukip were telling the truth, it's depressing.
The end of labour?
If he was to come across better on TV, where most people get to see him, if he could be a bit slicker, have a little oomph and some charisma, rather than just being the honest John 'nice' man, he might carry some of the public rather than his socialist disciples.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
The end of labour?
It's that "Honest John Nice Man" that has given him so much appeal. He tells it as it is. None of the usual lies & telling you what you want to hear twaddle that is synonymous with politicians. Even his opponents can't fault him for that.
The question now, though, is whether his Blairite opponents will accept his victory or set about plotting their next coup. The key phrase is that he is "Unelectable". Well, he seems to have been pretty electable at the moment - not only with a new record breaking majority mandate (beating his own previous record), but with 25% of those eligible to vote having been purged & disqualified from voting. If these had been permitted to vote it is easily possible that his majority would have been into the 80%s. However, if his majority had been fractionally less than last time, you can bet that the rebels would spin it to say that he was losing popularity. They say that in order to win an election he would need to get Conservative voters to vote Labour, and that he is preaching his policies to the converted. Well, with so many new converts to Labour - now the biggest political party in Europe, since Corbyn came to power, who do you think converted them?
The Blairite rebels see there as being 2 options of Government - Right Wing Tory or Tory Lite. Either way, it's Right of Centre. Many Owen Smith supporters are now defecting to the Lib Dems, which is hardly surprising - that's more towards where their politics lie, and about as trustworthy.
The battle now is to get rid of the deadwood that would cause rifts in the Party & get together & form a united front against this Tory Government that continues on its goal to Privatise all Public Services, reintroduce Grammar Schools & continue with Austerity.
As for the PLP now wanting an elected Shadow Cabinet - elected by the PLP, of course - well that is simply laughable. It's obviously just another move towards a new coup. The best move now is mandatory reselection.
The question now, though, is whether his Blairite opponents will accept his victory or set about plotting their next coup. The key phrase is that he is "Unelectable". Well, he seems to have been pretty electable at the moment - not only with a new record breaking majority mandate (beating his own previous record), but with 25% of those eligible to vote having been purged & disqualified from voting. If these had been permitted to vote it is easily possible that his majority would have been into the 80%s. However, if his majority had been fractionally less than last time, you can bet that the rebels would spin it to say that he was losing popularity. They say that in order to win an election he would need to get Conservative voters to vote Labour, and that he is preaching his policies to the converted. Well, with so many new converts to Labour - now the biggest political party in Europe, since Corbyn came to power, who do you think converted them?
The Blairite rebels see there as being 2 options of Government - Right Wing Tory or Tory Lite. Either way, it's Right of Centre. Many Owen Smith supporters are now defecting to the Lib Dems, which is hardly surprising - that's more towards where their politics lie, and about as trustworthy.
The battle now is to get rid of the deadwood that would cause rifts in the Party & get together & form a united front against this Tory Government that continues on its goal to Privatise all Public Services, reintroduce Grammar Schools & continue with Austerity.
As for the PLP now wanting an elected Shadow Cabinet - elected by the PLP, of course - well that is simply laughable. It's obviously just another move towards a new coup. The best move now is mandatory reselection.
The end of labour?
FourPart;1501453 wrote:
The battle now is to get rid of the deadwood that would cause rifts in the Party & get together & form a united front against this Tory Government that continues on its goal to Privatise all Public Services, reintroduce Grammar Schools & continue with Austerity.
Tell me, just how would Labour avoid the legal ramifications should they oust MP's before legally being able to deselect them in 2020? How many Labour supporters would be lost with those who support the rebels? How exactly would they regain 50 seats needed to win a general election in 2020, by getting rid of those who oppose Corbyn, as dead wood?
The battle now is to get rid of the deadwood that would cause rifts in the Party & get together & form a united front against this Tory Government that continues on its goal to Privatise all Public Services, reintroduce Grammar Schools & continue with Austerity.
Tell me, just how would Labour avoid the legal ramifications should they oust MP's before legally being able to deselect them in 2020? How many Labour supporters would be lost with those who support the rebels? How exactly would they regain 50 seats needed to win a general election in 2020, by getting rid of those who oppose Corbyn, as dead wood?
The end of labour?
Even as a Labour member I would have 2nd thoughts about voting for a candidate who turned on a democratically elected Leader, as it demonstrates they are not to be trusted. By selecting ones that can be trusted they are more likely to gain my vote.
Secondly, I have absolutely no problem with anyone holding an opinion that differs to that of the Leader. The point is that those opinions need to go with the due procedure as laid down. There is absolutely no excuse for mutiny. Jeremy is clearly the democratic choice of the Membership. He has not only proved that the first time round, but has validated that with an increased majority, despite the mutineers best efforts to purge his supporters.
I have always been a supporter of the Recall Bill, where constituents would be able to force a by election if they felt their MP was not representing his / her constituents properly (although quite how this would be put into practice, I'm not quite certain). However, I feel that their politics are so much in conflict with the rest of the Party that they should stand down & join the Lib Dems or form their own Party - a new SDP, perhaps - and see how 'electable' that becomes.
Secondly, I have absolutely no problem with anyone holding an opinion that differs to that of the Leader. The point is that those opinions need to go with the due procedure as laid down. There is absolutely no excuse for mutiny. Jeremy is clearly the democratic choice of the Membership. He has not only proved that the first time round, but has validated that with an increased majority, despite the mutineers best efforts to purge his supporters.
I have always been a supporter of the Recall Bill, where constituents would be able to force a by election if they felt their MP was not representing his / her constituents properly (although quite how this would be put into practice, I'm not quite certain). However, I feel that their politics are so much in conflict with the rest of the Party that they should stand down & join the Lib Dems or form their own Party - a new SDP, perhaps - and see how 'electable' that becomes.
The end of labour?
FourPart;1501466 wrote: Even as a Labour member I would have 2nd thoughts about voting for a candidate who turned on a democratically elected Leader, as it demonstrates they are not to be trusted. By selecting ones that can be trusted they are more likely to gain my vote.
Secondly, I have absolutely no problem with anyone holding an opinion that differs to that of the Leader. The point is that those opinions need to go with the due procedure as laid down. There is absolutely no excuse for mutiny. Jeremy is clearly the democratic choice of the Membership. He has not only proved that the first time round, but has validated that with an increased majority, despite the mutineers best efforts to purge his supporters.
I have always been a supporter of the Recall Bill, where constituents would be able to force a by election if they felt their MP was not representing his / her constituents properly (although quite how this would be put into practice, I'm not quite certain). However, I feel that their politics are so much in conflict with the rest of the Party that they should stand down & join the Lib Dems or form their own Party - a new SDP, perhaps - and see how 'electable' that becomes.
You didn't answer my question. How will Labour over come the legal ramifications of attempting to deselect MP's illegally before 2020 based on the excuse of ' dead wood '. Your post is full of contradiction. If on one hand, you wish rebels to observe the democratically elected leader, then equally democratically, one would expect the leader to observe those who did not vote for him.
Secondly, I have absolutely no problem with anyone holding an opinion that differs to that of the Leader. The point is that those opinions need to go with the due procedure as laid down. There is absolutely no excuse for mutiny. Jeremy is clearly the democratic choice of the Membership. He has not only proved that the first time round, but has validated that with an increased majority, despite the mutineers best efforts to purge his supporters.
I have always been a supporter of the Recall Bill, where constituents would be able to force a by election if they felt their MP was not representing his / her constituents properly (although quite how this would be put into practice, I'm not quite certain). However, I feel that their politics are so much in conflict with the rest of the Party that they should stand down & join the Lib Dems or form their own Party - a new SDP, perhaps - and see how 'electable' that becomes.
You didn't answer my question. How will Labour over come the legal ramifications of attempting to deselect MP's illegally before 2020 based on the excuse of ' dead wood '. Your post is full of contradiction. If on one hand, you wish rebels to observe the democratically elected leader, then equally democratically, one would expect the leader to observe those who did not vote for him.
The end of labour?
Momus;1501475 wrote: You didn't answer my question. How will Labour over come the legal ramifications of attempting to deselect MP's illegally before 2020 based on the excuse of ' dead wood '. Your post is full of contradiction. If on one hand, you wish rebels to observe the democratically elected leader, then equally democratically, one would expect the leader to observe those who did not vote for him.
Who said anything about getting rid of them before the election? I say that the CLPs who select the candidates should seriously consider those they put forward. As for the Recall Bill, the fact that it is a Bill, and a Bill that is currently being considered, covers any legal ramifications, as you put it. I don't agree with Jeremy about wiping the slate clean. As far as I'm concerned, it's a case of "Cross me once, shame on you. Cross me twice, shame on me". They have demonstrated that they are not to be trusted & should be treated accordingly.
Who said anything about getting rid of them before the election? I say that the CLPs who select the candidates should seriously consider those they put forward. As for the Recall Bill, the fact that it is a Bill, and a Bill that is currently being considered, covers any legal ramifications, as you put it. I don't agree with Jeremy about wiping the slate clean. As far as I'm concerned, it's a case of "Cross me once, shame on you. Cross me twice, shame on me". They have demonstrated that they are not to be trusted & should be treated accordingly.
The end of labour?
FourPart;1501491 wrote: Who said anything about getting rid of them before the election? I say that the CLPs who select the candidates should seriously consider those they put forward. As for the Recall Bill, the fact that it is a Bill, and a Bill that is currently being considered, covers any legal ramifications, as you put it. I don't agree with Jeremy about wiping the slate clean. As far as I'm concerned, it's a case of "Cross me once, shame on you. Cross me twice, shame on me". They have demonstrated that they are not to be trusted & should be treated accordingly.
Not to be trusted? What world do you live in ? Corbyn won by 61 % of the vote. 39 % of members against him, is not to be sniffed at. It's not a small percentage and it represents quite a significant amount of the party. Badly handled, you would be looking at a revolt on the back benches. " Cross me once" etc. What nonsence. You can not deny a constituency and it's voters a decent, hardworking MP for simply not agreeing with the leader. The split has nothing to do with personalities, it is a divide between old and new Labour. Who are you to say, that those wishing to retain new Labour mandate, are wrong and those wishing to return to old Labour, are right? The leadership was won because the election was premature and Smith was unprepared. The party was hijacked by pressure groups with an enormous influx of new members. The party is unelectable under Corbyn and Labour do not have a hope in hell of winning a General election. There is already bullying and Anti–semitism. I predict a revolt long before 2020.
Not to be trusted? What world do you live in ? Corbyn won by 61 % of the vote. 39 % of members against him, is not to be sniffed at. It's not a small percentage and it represents quite a significant amount of the party. Badly handled, you would be looking at a revolt on the back benches. " Cross me once" etc. What nonsence. You can not deny a constituency and it's voters a decent, hardworking MP for simply not agreeing with the leader. The split has nothing to do with personalities, it is a divide between old and new Labour. Who are you to say, that those wishing to retain new Labour mandate, are wrong and those wishing to return to old Labour, are right? The leadership was won because the election was premature and Smith was unprepared. The party was hijacked by pressure groups with an enormous influx of new members. The party is unelectable under Corbyn and Labour do not have a hope in hell of winning a General election. There is already bullying and Anti–semitism. I predict a revolt long before 2020.
The end of labour?
Talk about spin. The Labour Party has the highest membership ever, and is the biggest political party in Europe, and is continuing to grow. When a party has such consistent growth, nobody could possibly say that it is dying & be taken seriously. I personally know several people who have always voted Tory, yet are leaning towards Jeremy. They are impressed by his being a man of principle & forthright honesty. Even his political opponents accept that much - that's why they fear him. It's setting a new approach to politics - Integrity in place of Deceit. The electorate is sick & tired of the same old lies. Blair got in by making the choice of election Tory or Tory-Lite. There was no realistic Socialist option. Blair's legacy is now infamous. The last thing anyone wants is a return to those days. The Lib-Dems simply turned tail on every single one of their manifesto promises once offered a place in a Government coalition. That's how trustworthy they are. Their primary electoral campaign was to drop VAT. What was their first action once they sided with Cameron? They voted to increase it. Their treacherous actions brought about the end to the Lib-Dems, as they have become the face of Political Lies. Corbyn has ALWAYS stuck by his policies. He doesn't change his answers to suit whoever it is he is talking to. When asked a question he gives a straight answer. You know where you stand with him. He is a breath of fresh air, and that is why he now has such growing support. Not a Leader? Surely the definition of a Leader is someone who has people to follow, and there is no shortage of those.
The end of labour?
FourPart;1501520 wrote: Talk about spin. The Labour Party has the highest membership ever, and is the biggest political party in Europe, and is continuing to grow. When a party has such consistent growth, nobody could possibly say that it is dying & be taken seriously. I personally know several people who have always voted Tory, yet are leaning towards Jeremy. They are impressed by his being a man of principle & forthright honesty. Even his political opponents accept that much - that's why they fear him. It's setting a new approach to politics - Integrity in place of Deceit. The electorate is sick & tired of the same old lies. Blair got in by making the choice of election Tory or Tory-Lite. There was no realistic Socialist option. Blair's legacy is now infamous. The last thing anyone wants is a return to those days. The Lib-Dems simply turned tail on every single one of their manifesto promises once offered a place in a Government coalition. That's how trustworthy they are. Their primary electoral campaign was to drop VAT. What was their first action once they sided with Cameron? They voted to increase it. Their treacherous actions brought about the end to the Lib-Dems, as they have become the face of Political Lies. Corbyn has ALWAYS stuck by his policies. He doesn't change his answers to suit whoever it is he is talking to. When asked a question he gives a straight answer. You know where you stand with him. He is a breath of fresh air, and that is why he now has such growing support. Not a Leader? Surely the definition of a Leader is someone who has people to follow, and there is no shortage of those. Good heavens above, you have brought me in mind of a Bros fan, who i had the misfortune to come into contact with in the 80's and have not witnessed such gushing, hero worship since. Regardless, the surge of membership is not consistent growth as you claim. Party memberships in Europe have been on the decline for many years, and the decline in numbers of other parties, is solely responsible for Labour outnumbering them in the tables. The first leadership election in which Corbyn was elected in September 2015, saw four candidates, Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper, Jeremy Corbyn, and Liz Kendall. The 2016 election, saw, just two candidates and in which Owen Smith was ill prepared. In 2015 Corbyn won by 59.5 % of the vote, bearing in mind, votes were distributed among three other candidates. The recent win at 61.8 % taking into account, only one challenger, is actually a poor percentage and poor gain, on the previous year. With one challenger, if Corbyn was indeed as popular as you claim, the gain should have been significantly higher. You seem to be blind as to the dire situation for Corbyn. Already, he faces a troubling future after he is on course to lose his majority on the NEC after the party moved to add two further Seats to the ruling body, shifting Corbyn's balance of power. When you look further, you find that Corbyn won fewer votes from members who joined the party prior to 2015, than Smith, indicating his unpopularity among party faithful. Corbyn needs to recruit tens of thousands of like minded recruits, or we could see another leadership challenge within a year, possibly from the more popular, Chuka Umunna. The praise you heap upon Corbyn for his principle & forthright honesty, leads me to the conclusion that you have looked no further than the hero worship you appear to possess. Already, in a short period of time, there are several major U turns. The ' Traingate ' affair left him exposed as a liar. The man even had the gall to admit that he lied. You think this is what the country wants in a leader? Really ? Corbyn has consistently been tackled over Antisemitism within the party and he, himself found he was subject to complaint after he alleged that Jews lie and deceive in order to further hidden agenda's. In February of the this year, serious allegations were made that male councilors had blocked and discriminated against Muslim women, wishing to stand for office. Certainly, we only have to look to Labour conferences to witness, women being segregated from the men. Corbyn is a draconian socialist who is in effect, dragging the democracy of the UK back decades. I would wager good money, that this time next year, the party will be in further disarray and most likely, Corbyn will be history. His new membership figures are in the main due to a rebellion of Brexit, in the hope by those Remain voters, will see Corbyn able to reverse the leave vote. As soon as Theresa May invokes article 50, those new members will begin slipping away. Many of those joining were doing so, simply because the Lib Dems hold no power or influence and Corbyn as head of Labour, was their only chance of a serious opposition to invoking article 50. When they finally understand that he can do diddly squat about it, they will be gone. Or do you think, they only joined because they idolise the liar as much as you? If you thought that, then you are naive. Further more, Corbyn by stating he is on course to continue mass immigration, really shows just how seriously this old man is out of touch with the people of the UK. A good, honest leader would respect the vote of the people in his country and accept the Brexit vote with dignity but more importantly, respect the fact that immigration is a major concern to many voters. This stance will cost him and it will cost him dearly. This and the declaration on a hike in taxes for the working and unlimited benefit for the bone idle, is political suicide and merely shows how out of touch, this old buffoon really is in modern democratic UK.
The end of labour?
I like him even more........knowing Momus doesn't.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
The end of labour?
Bruv;1501544 wrote: I like him even more........knowing Momus doesn't. I never stated that. Corbyn does have attributes. I do believe he is passionate, and i also believe he is less corruptible than many, but i believe his socialist agenda is outdated and there are serious issue's within the party that he has failed to address in order to satisfy his critics. In July, the Wallasey MP Angela Eagle demanded an investigation into quote " "bullying, intimidation, misogyny and homophobia have no place in the Labour Party". It is allegations such as these that show Corbyn to be heading the party back to the 1940's and that leads most to believe, he is out of touch with public feeling in today's society.
The end of labour?
Momus;1501548 wrote: I never stated that.
You didn't?
Corbyn is a plodder, a cart horse. He has a vision, an ideal.....and he is not afraid to say it.
You have to listen to the whole plan, and the reasons behind what he says rather than Mail headlines.
Give me a bumbling honest man with ideals anytime, remembering the previous Labour offering......the smarmy golden tongued multi-millionaire Mr Blair
You didn't?
Corbyn is a plodder, a cart horse. He has a vision, an ideal.....and he is not afraid to say it.
You have to listen to the whole plan, and the reasons behind what he says rather than Mail headlines.
Give me a bumbling honest man with ideals anytime, remembering the previous Labour offering......the smarmy golden tongued multi-millionaire Mr Blair
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
The end of labour?
Bruv;1501550 wrote: You didn't?
Corbyn is a plodder, a cart horse. He has a vision, an ideal.....and he is not afraid to say it.
You have to listen to the whole plan, and the reasons behind what he says rather than Mail headlines.
Give me a bumbling honest man with ideals anytime, remembering the previous Labour offering......the smarmy golden tongued multi-millionaire Mr Blair
How predictable from any Corbynite, rather than offer some facts to counterclaim my post, resort to accusing anyone who does not agree with them, of being a Daily Mail reader. Same old get out rhetoric they all use. Corbyn has no vision, and he has nothing new. It is a return to old Labour, pre Blair and New Labour. All Corbyn is doing, is reinventing the wheel, recrafting old theories that are now obsolete in modern day government. Tony Blair himself, told Corbyn that he was "the politics of protest, not power". On that, he is correct. Corbyn and Labour today is seen as the party of protest and not a party that is capable of winning an forming a government. Andy Burnham said "Labour needs a plan to win back the voters we failed to convince on immigration. We will not succeed in doing that by denying the effect that migration has had on some communities". He is also correct. Membership to Labour is a joining through protest, not a vote of confidence for the leader,
Corbyn is a plodder, a cart horse. He has a vision, an ideal.....and he is not afraid to say it.
You have to listen to the whole plan, and the reasons behind what he says rather than Mail headlines.
Give me a bumbling honest man with ideals anytime, remembering the previous Labour offering......the smarmy golden tongued multi-millionaire Mr Blair
How predictable from any Corbynite, rather than offer some facts to counterclaim my post, resort to accusing anyone who does not agree with them, of being a Daily Mail reader. Same old get out rhetoric they all use. Corbyn has no vision, and he has nothing new. It is a return to old Labour, pre Blair and New Labour. All Corbyn is doing, is reinventing the wheel, recrafting old theories that are now obsolete in modern day government. Tony Blair himself, told Corbyn that he was "the politics of protest, not power". On that, he is correct. Corbyn and Labour today is seen as the party of protest and not a party that is capable of winning an forming a government. Andy Burnham said "Labour needs a plan to win back the voters we failed to convince on immigration. We will not succeed in doing that by denying the effect that migration has had on some communities". He is also correct. Membership to Labour is a joining through protest, not a vote of confidence for the leader,
The end of labour?
Momus;1501556 wrote: How predictable from any Corbynite, rather than offer some facts to counterclaim my post, resort to accusing anyone who does not agree with them, of being a Daily Mail reader. Same old get out rhetoric they all use. Corbyn has no vision, and he has nothing new. It is a return to old Labour, pre Blair and New Labour. All Corbyn is doing, is reinventing the wheel, recrafting old theories that are now obsolete in modern day government. Tony Blair himself, told Corbyn that he was "the politics of protest, not power". On that, he is correct. Corbyn and Labour today is seen as the party of protest and not a party that is capable of winning an forming a government. Andy Burnham said "Labour needs a plan to win back the voters we failed to convince on immigration. We will not succeed in doing that by denying the effect that migration has had on some communities". He is also correct. Membership to Labour is a joining through protest, not a vote of confidence for the leader,
Woteva.
Woteva.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
The end of labour?
Bruv;1501563 wrote: Woteva. One can only feel a warm glow of smug satisfaction when those so vocal, lose the ability to respond.
The end of labour?
Momus;1501565 wrote: One can only feel a warm glow of smug satisfaction when those so vocal, lose the ability to respond.
Don't confuse a lack of response with concession.
Don't confuse a lack of response with concession.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
The end of labour?
Momus;1501565 wrote: One can only feel a warm glow of smug satisfaction when those so vocal, lose the ability to respond.
That warm glow might be you wetting yourself......might be worth checking.
That warm glow might be you wetting yourself......might be worth checking.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
The end of labour?
Momus;1501548 wrote: I never stated that. Corbyn does have attributes. I do believe he is passionate, and i also believe he is less corruptible than many, but i believe his socialist agenda is outdated and there are serious issue's within the party that he has failed to address in order to satisfy his critics. In July, the Wallasey MP Angela Eagle demanded an investigation into quote " "bullying, intimidation, misogyny and homophobia have no place in the Labour Party". It is allegations such as these that show Corbyn to be heading the party back to the 1940's and that leads most to believe, he is out of touch with public feeling in today's society.
What the NHS is outdated? Free education is outdated? Protection for workers from exploitation by unscrupulous employers outdated? Getting companies top pay their fair share of tax on profitas they earn in tghis country outdated?
Tony blair and gordon brown facilitated the economic crisis of 2008 and not a single banker has answered for what they did. All we hear fropm the blairites is let's tell lies so we get elected and then we can do great things and they wonder why no one trusts them. Thatcher and the tories have destroyed our economy aided by blair and co (PFI, etc etc) not to mentionm pointless wars that have set the middle east on fire and now thanks to internal party politucs we have a bunch of numbskulls hearkening back to past glories when we were an empire thinkingb they bhave won a great victory.
posted by momus
A good, honest leader would respect the vote of the people in his country and accept the Brexit vote with dignity but more importantly, respect the fact that immigration is a major concern to many voters. This stance will cost him and it will cost him dearly. This and the declaration on a hike in taxes for the working and unlimited benefit for the bone idle, is political suicide and merely shows how out of touch, this old buffoon really is in modern democratic UK.
A good leader is one that will try ad prersuade people what a stupid idea brexit is and try to get them to ubderstand how much they have been lied to by ukip and the right wing press. Something that is going to ruin lives for the next several generations should not be decided on such a slim majority. At the very least once we know what the deal will be we should have another referendum. Certainly the scots will be having one and hopefully we will detach from the fascists now running england.
At least youn won't have to worry about immigration once the Uk is third world country they'll all go home. Not to worry you will be able to get on hs2 and visit the industrial museums in birmingham.
What the NHS is outdated? Free education is outdated? Protection for workers from exploitation by unscrupulous employers outdated? Getting companies top pay their fair share of tax on profitas they earn in tghis country outdated?
Tony blair and gordon brown facilitated the economic crisis of 2008 and not a single banker has answered for what they did. All we hear fropm the blairites is let's tell lies so we get elected and then we can do great things and they wonder why no one trusts them. Thatcher and the tories have destroyed our economy aided by blair and co (PFI, etc etc) not to mentionm pointless wars that have set the middle east on fire and now thanks to internal party politucs we have a bunch of numbskulls hearkening back to past glories when we were an empire thinkingb they bhave won a great victory.
posted by momus
A good, honest leader would respect the vote of the people in his country and accept the Brexit vote with dignity but more importantly, respect the fact that immigration is a major concern to many voters. This stance will cost him and it will cost him dearly. This and the declaration on a hike in taxes for the working and unlimited benefit for the bone idle, is political suicide and merely shows how out of touch, this old buffoon really is in modern democratic UK.
A good leader is one that will try ad prersuade people what a stupid idea brexit is and try to get them to ubderstand how much they have been lied to by ukip and the right wing press. Something that is going to ruin lives for the next several generations should not be decided on such a slim majority. At the very least once we know what the deal will be we should have another referendum. Certainly the scots will be having one and hopefully we will detach from the fascists now running england.
At least youn won't have to worry about immigration once the Uk is third world country they'll all go home. Not to worry you will be able to get on hs2 and visit the industrial museums in birmingham.
The end of labour?
LarsMac;1501568 wrote: Don't confuse a lack of response with concession.
That's a relief, only I'd hate to be forced into some serious debate here.
That's a relief, only I'd hate to be forced into some serious debate here.
The end of labour?
gmc;1501577 wrote: What the NHS is outdated? Free education is outdated? Protection for workers from exploitation by unscrupulous employers outdated? Getting companies top pay their fair share of tax on profitas they earn in tghis country outdated?
Tony blair and gordon brown facilitated the economic crisis of 2008 and not a single banker has answered for what they did. All we hear fropm the blairites is let's tell lies so we get elected and then we can do great things and they wonder why no one trusts them. Thatcher and the tories have destroyed our economy aided by blair and co (PFI, etc etc) not to mentionm pointless wars that have set the middle east on fire and now thanks to internal party politucs we have a bunch of numbskulls hearkening back to past glories when we were an empire thinkingb they bhave won a great victory.
posted by momus
A good leader is one that will try ad prersuade people what a stupid idea brexit is and try to get them to ubderstand how much they have been lied to by ukip and the right wing press. Something that is going to ruin lives for the next several generations should not be decided on such a slim majority. At the very least once we know what the deal will be we should have another referendum. Certainly the scots will be having one and hopefully we will detach from the fascists now running england.
At least youn won't have to worry about immigration once the Uk is third world country they'll all go home. Not to worry you will be able to get on hs2 and visit the industrial museums in birmingham.
There were advantages on both sides regarding membership of the EU. The fact remains that Brexit won and those who wished to remain, should respect the democratic vote from just over half of the country. The behaviour displayed by the losers over the past few months, including MP's sets a precedent to the young, that you can just stamp your feet and cry, until you get your own way. Do you really believe that the Remain camp would have called for a second referendum, if they had won? Exactly, a ridiculous notion. The most telling words spoken, came from Nigel Farage when he told embittered Remainers, " what do you think this is? The best out of three?' Although the best from Farage must be the opening words in my link. The young have been conditioned to believing that Britain is not good enough to stand alone. To be ruled by unelected bureaucrats, is not democratic. Nicola Sturgeon hasn't got a clue. She wants a second referendum for independent Scotland while she's flogged herself round the EU in an attempt to remain in Europe. You are talking about the benefits of the UK, now, today. Corbyn has announced a continuation of mass immigration when he knows the mood of the country. It is not always about racism as Remain voters are so quick to accuse. We can not house the people already here. So, to begin with, if he ever wins the 2020 general election, which he hasn't a hope in hell's chance, what he would do, is put a further unimaginable strain on the NHS, schools and emergency services, that you attribute to socialism. Further more, his socialist agenda has opened Labour doors for ever far left bigots and dubious characters. At the Liverpool conference, Labour activists, from his Momentum group, openly sold pamphlets, mocking disabled ex service men and women, along with questioning the requirement to commemorate Jewish victims of the Holocaust. Is that the kind of socialism you think the UK needs? These extremists previously barred from mainstream politics, have been given a platform by Corbyn. Further more, he has stated he will introduce unlimited benefits and will borrow money to do so. We all know the flak Gordon Brown took for the exact same ideology. He also pledges to scrap the 1999 union legislation. Corbyn writes “But the best way to guarantee fair pay is through strengthening unions’ ability to bargain collectively – giving employees the right to organise through a union and negotiate their pay, terms and conditions at work,â€. What that means in the real world, is the country being held to ransom once again by militant strike action.
Tony blair and gordon brown facilitated the economic crisis of 2008 and not a single banker has answered for what they did. All we hear fropm the blairites is let's tell lies so we get elected and then we can do great things and they wonder why no one trusts them. Thatcher and the tories have destroyed our economy aided by blair and co (PFI, etc etc) not to mentionm pointless wars that have set the middle east on fire and now thanks to internal party politucs we have a bunch of numbskulls hearkening back to past glories when we were an empire thinkingb they bhave won a great victory.
posted by momus
A good leader is one that will try ad prersuade people what a stupid idea brexit is and try to get them to ubderstand how much they have been lied to by ukip and the right wing press. Something that is going to ruin lives for the next several generations should not be decided on such a slim majority. At the very least once we know what the deal will be we should have another referendum. Certainly the scots will be having one and hopefully we will detach from the fascists now running england.
At least youn won't have to worry about immigration once the Uk is third world country they'll all go home. Not to worry you will be able to get on hs2 and visit the industrial museums in birmingham.
There were advantages on both sides regarding membership of the EU. The fact remains that Brexit won and those who wished to remain, should respect the democratic vote from just over half of the country. The behaviour displayed by the losers over the past few months, including MP's sets a precedent to the young, that you can just stamp your feet and cry, until you get your own way. Do you really believe that the Remain camp would have called for a second referendum, if they had won? Exactly, a ridiculous notion. The most telling words spoken, came from Nigel Farage when he told embittered Remainers, " what do you think this is? The best out of three?' Although the best from Farage must be the opening words in my link. The young have been conditioned to believing that Britain is not good enough to stand alone. To be ruled by unelected bureaucrats, is not democratic. Nicola Sturgeon hasn't got a clue. She wants a second referendum for independent Scotland while she's flogged herself round the EU in an attempt to remain in Europe. You are talking about the benefits of the UK, now, today. Corbyn has announced a continuation of mass immigration when he knows the mood of the country. It is not always about racism as Remain voters are so quick to accuse. We can not house the people already here. So, to begin with, if he ever wins the 2020 general election, which he hasn't a hope in hell's chance, what he would do, is put a further unimaginable strain on the NHS, schools and emergency services, that you attribute to socialism. Further more, his socialist agenda has opened Labour doors for ever far left bigots and dubious characters. At the Liverpool conference, Labour activists, from his Momentum group, openly sold pamphlets, mocking disabled ex service men and women, along with questioning the requirement to commemorate Jewish victims of the Holocaust. Is that the kind of socialism you think the UK needs? These extremists previously barred from mainstream politics, have been given a platform by Corbyn. Further more, he has stated he will introduce unlimited benefits and will borrow money to do so. We all know the flak Gordon Brown took for the exact same ideology. He also pledges to scrap the 1999 union legislation. Corbyn writes “But the best way to guarantee fair pay is through strengthening unions’ ability to bargain collectively – giving employees the right to organise through a union and negotiate their pay, terms and conditions at work,â€. What that means in the real world, is the country being held to ransom once again by militant strike action.
The end of labour?
UKIP has opened the door to every bigit and racist to feel free to come out of the woodwork. We no longer have a capitalist economy but one run for the benefit of a few and that i would put squarelky at the door of the tories and the blairites who are also responsible or te uncontrolled immigration to this country most of which is not from the eu who at least share common values with us.
This is a democracy we do not remain silent when either the labour or tory party are in power we have this called the opposition whose function is to act as a curb on the ecxesses of those in power. The referendum result was a very narrow victoiry for the leave campaign that the views of almost half the population who voited should now count for nothing and just suck it up is the view of a brexit campaign terrified they be found out and the nager of the british people turn on them. Fagare and johnston ran away fargage is a liar and hypocrite who has made a fortune as an MEP no wonder he doesn't need to work. If you're daft to take the words of a charlatan as some kind of authority my estimation of you has gone down somewhat.
The days of militant are long over yes there are scumbag lefties in the labour party the fascists are in ukip and the tories have a free hand to further wreck our economy. I see she (theresa may) has now given a blank check to edf to build a nuclear reactor despite their never having been able to get one working the british public have been put in hock yet again to the highest bidder yet again. Not to worry we will mhave trident to make us all feel good.
The young have been conditioned to believing that Britain is not good enough to stand alone. To be ruled by unelected bureaucrats, is not democratic. Nicola Sturgeon hasn't got a clue. She wants a second referendum for independent Scotland while she's flogged herself round the EU in an attempt to remain in Europe. You are talking about the benefits of the UK, now, today.
Only ukip wrere daft enough enough to fall for that one the young see the benefit of working together and are not taken in by tales of global warming being an eu conspiracy to make us use less powerful hoovers and other silly stories. Nicloa sturgeon won the last elction with the snp taking most of the seats and that's ith proportion al representation a system put in by labour to prevent the snp winning a majority of the seats. As to the benefits of the uk now today looking at the chaos to come as the economy goes down the toilet the sooner scotland gets control of her own future from an unelected westminster political establishment the better and the sooner theresa may understands that scotklans is no just a region in the north of england the better the bvreak up will be.
This is a democracy we do not remain silent when either the labour or tory party are in power we have this called the opposition whose function is to act as a curb on the ecxesses of those in power. The referendum result was a very narrow victoiry for the leave campaign that the views of almost half the population who voited should now count for nothing and just suck it up is the view of a brexit campaign terrified they be found out and the nager of the british people turn on them. Fagare and johnston ran away fargage is a liar and hypocrite who has made a fortune as an MEP no wonder he doesn't need to work. If you're daft to take the words of a charlatan as some kind of authority my estimation of you has gone down somewhat.
The days of militant are long over yes there are scumbag lefties in the labour party the fascists are in ukip and the tories have a free hand to further wreck our economy. I see she (theresa may) has now given a blank check to edf to build a nuclear reactor despite their never having been able to get one working the british public have been put in hock yet again to the highest bidder yet again. Not to worry we will mhave trident to make us all feel good.
The young have been conditioned to believing that Britain is not good enough to stand alone. To be ruled by unelected bureaucrats, is not democratic. Nicola Sturgeon hasn't got a clue. She wants a second referendum for independent Scotland while she's flogged herself round the EU in an attempt to remain in Europe. You are talking about the benefits of the UK, now, today.
Only ukip wrere daft enough enough to fall for that one the young see the benefit of working together and are not taken in by tales of global warming being an eu conspiracy to make us use less powerful hoovers and other silly stories. Nicloa sturgeon won the last elction with the snp taking most of the seats and that's ith proportion al representation a system put in by labour to prevent the snp winning a majority of the seats. As to the benefits of the uk now today looking at the chaos to come as the economy goes down the toilet the sooner scotland gets control of her own future from an unelected westminster political establishment the better and the sooner theresa may understands that scotklans is no just a region in the north of england the better the bvreak up will be.
The end of labour?
Momus;1501584 wrote: There were advantages on both sides regarding membership of the EU. The fact remains that Brexit won and those who wished to remain, should respect the democratic vote from just over half of the country. The behaviour displayed by the losers over the past few months, including MP's sets a precedent to the young, that you can just stamp your feet and cry, until you get your own way. Do you really believe that the Remain camp would have called for a second referendum, if they had won? Exactly, a ridiculous notion. The most telling words spoken, came from Nigel Farage when he told embittered Remainers, " what do you think this is? The best out of three?' Although the best from Farage must be the opening words in my link. The young have been conditioned to believing that Britain is not good enough to stand alone. To be ruled by unelected bureaucrats, is not democratic. Nicola Sturgeon hasn't got a clue. She wants a second referendum for independent Scotland while she's flogged herself round the EU in an attempt to remain in Europe. You are talking about the benefits of the UK, now, today. Corbyn has announced a continuation of mass immigration when he knows the mood of the country. It is not always about racism as Remain voters are so quick to accuse. We can not house the people already here. So, to begin with, if he ever wins the 2020 general election, which he hasn't a hope in hell's chance, what he would do, is put a further unimaginable strain on the NHS, schools and emergency services, that you attribute to socialism. Further more, his socialist agenda has opened Labour doors for ever far left bigots and dubious characters. At the Liverpool conference, Labour activists, from his Momentum group, openly sold pamphlets, mocking disabled ex service men and women, along with questioning the requirement to commemorate Jewish victims of the Holocaust. Is that the kind of socialism you think the UK needs? These extremists previously barred from mainstream politics, have been given a platform by Corbyn. Further more, he has stated he will introduce unlimited benefits and will borrow money to do so. We all know the flak Gordon Brown took for the exact same ideology. He also pledges to scrap the 1999 union legislation. Corbyn writes “But the best way to guarantee fair pay is through strengthening unions’ ability to bargain collectively – giving employees the right to organise through a union and negotiate their pay, terms and conditions at work,â€. What that means in the real world, is the country being held to ransom once again by militant strike action.
God invented paragraphs for a very good reason you know.
As someone that likes verification of points raised in posts.......could you kindly.....give some proof that Momentum sold pamphlets mocking servicemen. And the unlimited benefits claim......and the unrestricted immigration claim.....not your interpretation of what he actually said.
There are more questions but wading through an unbroken block of script is too much like hard work for an uneducated Corbynista
Oh yeah.......the can't house the present population claim in isolation from the right to buy policy........might need some explanation if you please.
God invented paragraphs for a very good reason you know.
As someone that likes verification of points raised in posts.......could you kindly.....give some proof that Momentum sold pamphlets mocking servicemen. And the unlimited benefits claim......and the unrestricted immigration claim.....not your interpretation of what he actually said.
There are more questions but wading through an unbroken block of script is too much like hard work for an uneducated Corbynista
Oh yeah.......the can't house the present population claim in isolation from the right to buy policy........might need some explanation if you please.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
The end of labour?
Bruv;1501589 wrote: God invented paragraphs for a very good reason you know.
As someone that likes verification of points raised in posts.......could you kindly.....give some proof that Momentum sold pamphlets mocking servicemen. And the unlimited benefits claim......and the unrestricted immigration claim.....not your interpretation of what he actually said.
There are more questions but wading through an unbroken block of script is too much like hard work for an uneducated Corbynista
Oh yeah.......the can't house the present population claim in isolation from the right to buy policy........might need some explanation if you please.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/sh ... poems-mugs
There are many more sites regarding the merchandise on the internet, all relatively easy to find, some dubious forums, but in essence, enough out there to validate my statement.
I can include paragraphs if that is so important to you.
There is no doubt that the right to buy policy of the 80's contributed to the dire shortage of social housing we see today, but it's an excuse wheeled out by the socialists to promote the right to grow policy of Labour. The facts are, that without the right to buy policy, the UK would still be facing a shortage of social housing today, following mass immigration and there is no guarantee that governments would have continued to build more stock had they not of been sold off. Rather than look at root causes that lie elsewhere, it's far easier to sell coffee mugs that sport, still hate Thatcher'. Since 1980, there has seen 36 years pass, and the excuse is as outdated as Scargill's hairline. The Labour government set a target in 2007 to build 240,000 new homes by 2016 to accommodate those needing social housing. While ten years ago, the Barker Review of Housing Supply, estimated that 250,000 new homes needed to be built every single year. These targets have never been met, but one of the causes is the credit crunch and financial crisis of 2008 and it's ongoing effects. One damaging cause is down to opposition to planning and building. The Home Builders Federation claimed that while figures have improved, the entire process was "still far too slow, bureaucratic and expensive". The situation has improved and housing minister, Brandon Lewis, stated 240,000 new homes planning had been submitted. Another issue, is abolishing government national and regional targets and leaving decisions in the hands of local decision making, which encourages nimbyism. Another contributing factor is lack of available land. When some politicians may agree with the building on greenbelt, it will always remain a contentious subject with residents and few MP's wil risk losing their Seat, going against the will of their constituents. Builders often sit on new builds in order to meet requirements yet prolong the finish date as best they can to maximize the highest selling price to local authorities.
Social housing is on the up. Pledges to build 275,000 more homes by 2020 is the fastest growth in decades.
Then comes the subject of migration and birth rates of ethnic groups and those mothers born outside of the UK, outweighing birth rates of British. With net migration at figures reaching 130,000 in and migration, out at 60,000, when summing up the housing crisis, this can not be ignored as a major factor.
The days of blaming Thatcher and the right to buy is tired rhetoric and no longer a legitimate argument on the subject.
As someone that likes verification of points raised in posts.......could you kindly.....give some proof that Momentum sold pamphlets mocking servicemen. And the unlimited benefits claim......and the unrestricted immigration claim.....not your interpretation of what he actually said.
There are more questions but wading through an unbroken block of script is too much like hard work for an uneducated Corbynista
Oh yeah.......the can't house the present population claim in isolation from the right to buy policy........might need some explanation if you please.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/sh ... poems-mugs
There are many more sites regarding the merchandise on the internet, all relatively easy to find, some dubious forums, but in essence, enough out there to validate my statement.
I can include paragraphs if that is so important to you.
There is no doubt that the right to buy policy of the 80's contributed to the dire shortage of social housing we see today, but it's an excuse wheeled out by the socialists to promote the right to grow policy of Labour. The facts are, that without the right to buy policy, the UK would still be facing a shortage of social housing today, following mass immigration and there is no guarantee that governments would have continued to build more stock had they not of been sold off. Rather than look at root causes that lie elsewhere, it's far easier to sell coffee mugs that sport, still hate Thatcher'. Since 1980, there has seen 36 years pass, and the excuse is as outdated as Scargill's hairline. The Labour government set a target in 2007 to build 240,000 new homes by 2016 to accommodate those needing social housing. While ten years ago, the Barker Review of Housing Supply, estimated that 250,000 new homes needed to be built every single year. These targets have never been met, but one of the causes is the credit crunch and financial crisis of 2008 and it's ongoing effects. One damaging cause is down to opposition to planning and building. The Home Builders Federation claimed that while figures have improved, the entire process was "still far too slow, bureaucratic and expensive". The situation has improved and housing minister, Brandon Lewis, stated 240,000 new homes planning had been submitted. Another issue, is abolishing government national and regional targets and leaving decisions in the hands of local decision making, which encourages nimbyism. Another contributing factor is lack of available land. When some politicians may agree with the building on greenbelt, it will always remain a contentious subject with residents and few MP's wil risk losing their Seat, going against the will of their constituents. Builders often sit on new builds in order to meet requirements yet prolong the finish date as best they can to maximize the highest selling price to local authorities.
Social housing is on the up. Pledges to build 275,000 more homes by 2020 is the fastest growth in decades.
Then comes the subject of migration and birth rates of ethnic groups and those mothers born outside of the UK, outweighing birth rates of British. With net migration at figures reaching 130,000 in and migration, out at 60,000, when summing up the housing crisis, this can not be ignored as a major factor.
The days of blaming Thatcher and the right to buy is tired rhetoric and no longer a legitimate argument on the subject.
The end of labour?
Momus;1501598 wrote: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/sh ... poems-mugs
There are many more sites regarding the merchandise on the internet, all relatively easy to find, some dubious forums, but in essence, enough out there to validate my statement.
I can include paragraphs if that is so important to you.
There is no doubt that the right to buy policy of the 80's contributed to the dire shortage of social housing we see today, but it's an excuse wheeled out by the socialists to promote the right to grow policy of Labour. The facts are, that without the right to buy policy, the UK would still be facing a shortage of social housing today, following mass immigration and there is no guarantee that governments would have continued to build more stock had they not of been sold off. Rather than look at root causes that lie elsewhere, it's far easier to sell coffee mugs that sport, still hate Thatcher'. Since 1980, there has seen 36 years pass, and the excuse is as outdated as Scargill's hairline. The Labour government set a target in 2007 to build 240,000 new homes by 2016 to accommodate those needing social housing. While ten years ago, the Barker Review of Housing Supply, estimated that 250,000 new homes needed to be built every single year. These targets have never been met, but one of the causes is the credit crunch and financial crisis of 2008 and it's ongoing effects. One damaging cause is down to opposition to planning and building. The Home Builders Federation claimed that while figures have improved, the entire process was "still far too slow, bureaucratic and expensive". The situation has improved and housing minister, Brandon Lewis, stated 240,000 new homes planning had been submitted. Another issue, is abolishing government national and regional targets and leaving decisions in the hands of local decision making, which encourages nimbyism. Another contributing factor is lack of available land. When some politicians may agree with the building on greenbelt, it will always remain a contentious subject with residents and few MP's wil risk losing their Seat, going against the will of their constituents. Builders often sit on new builds in order to meet requirements yet prolong the finish date as best they can to maximize the highest selling price to local authorities.
Social housing is on the up. Pledges to build 275,000 more homes by 2020 is the fastest growth in decades.
Then comes the subject of migration and birth rates of ethnic groups and those mothers born outside of the UK, outweighing birth rates of British. With net migration at figures reaching 130,000 in and migration, out at 60,000, when summing up the housing crisis, this can not be ignored as a major factor.
The days of blaming Thatcher and the right to buy is tired rhetoric and no longer a legitimate argument on the subject.
OK it is NOT me......it is good form to include paragraphs and such.....it makes it so much easier to read.
I read as far as the 'validation' for the 'mocking of servicemen' allegation.
Anti war mugs are not mocking servicemen, they are mocking war...... and satirical black humour about 'free prosthetic limbs' may not be 'nice' but they are not mocking servicemen either.
If you cannot see the connection between the right to buy and the massive transfer of public housing stock into private hands, and the repercussions..... then we will stop talking right there.
I refuse to read further, because life is too short to wade through slabs of text......all you have to do is hit the bleeding 'enter' key for heavens sake.
There are many more sites regarding the merchandise on the internet, all relatively easy to find, some dubious forums, but in essence, enough out there to validate my statement.
I can include paragraphs if that is so important to you.
There is no doubt that the right to buy policy of the 80's contributed to the dire shortage of social housing we see today, but it's an excuse wheeled out by the socialists to promote the right to grow policy of Labour. The facts are, that without the right to buy policy, the UK would still be facing a shortage of social housing today, following mass immigration and there is no guarantee that governments would have continued to build more stock had they not of been sold off. Rather than look at root causes that lie elsewhere, it's far easier to sell coffee mugs that sport, still hate Thatcher'. Since 1980, there has seen 36 years pass, and the excuse is as outdated as Scargill's hairline. The Labour government set a target in 2007 to build 240,000 new homes by 2016 to accommodate those needing social housing. While ten years ago, the Barker Review of Housing Supply, estimated that 250,000 new homes needed to be built every single year. These targets have never been met, but one of the causes is the credit crunch and financial crisis of 2008 and it's ongoing effects. One damaging cause is down to opposition to planning and building. The Home Builders Federation claimed that while figures have improved, the entire process was "still far too slow, bureaucratic and expensive". The situation has improved and housing minister, Brandon Lewis, stated 240,000 new homes planning had been submitted. Another issue, is abolishing government national and regional targets and leaving decisions in the hands of local decision making, which encourages nimbyism. Another contributing factor is lack of available land. When some politicians may agree with the building on greenbelt, it will always remain a contentious subject with residents and few MP's wil risk losing their Seat, going against the will of their constituents. Builders often sit on new builds in order to meet requirements yet prolong the finish date as best they can to maximize the highest selling price to local authorities.
Social housing is on the up. Pledges to build 275,000 more homes by 2020 is the fastest growth in decades.
Then comes the subject of migration and birth rates of ethnic groups and those mothers born outside of the UK, outweighing birth rates of British. With net migration at figures reaching 130,000 in and migration, out at 60,000, when summing up the housing crisis, this can not be ignored as a major factor.
The days of blaming Thatcher and the right to buy is tired rhetoric and no longer a legitimate argument on the subject.
OK it is NOT me......it is good form to include paragraphs and such.....it makes it so much easier to read.
I read as far as the 'validation' for the 'mocking of servicemen' allegation.
Anti war mugs are not mocking servicemen, they are mocking war...... and satirical black humour about 'free prosthetic limbs' may not be 'nice' but they are not mocking servicemen either.
If you cannot see the connection between the right to buy and the massive transfer of public housing stock into private hands, and the repercussions..... then we will stop talking right there.
I refuse to read further, because life is too short to wade through slabs of text......all you have to do is hit the bleeding 'enter' key for heavens sake.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
The end of labour?
Bruv;1501603 wrote:
..all you have to do is hit the bleeding 'enter' key for heavens sake.
How do you know I'm not blind ?
..all you have to do is hit the bleeding 'enter' key for heavens sake.
How do you know I'm not blind ?
The end of labour?
Momus;1501605 wrote: How do you know I'm not blind ?
Mocking the blind now ?
Mocking the blind now ?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
The end of labour?
Bruv;1501608 wrote: Mocking the blind now ? How do you know, i am not blind?
The end of labour?
Momus;1501615 wrote: How do you know, i am not blind?
How do you know I am not blind ?
How do you know I am not blind ?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
The end of labour?
Bruv;1501617 wrote: How do you know I am not blind ? Then we are not seeing eye to eye
The end of labour?
The tories are talking about extending the right to buy to housing associations you'd think they woukd have learned their lesson. We're gping to need even more social, housing for all the unemployed who end up unable to pay their mortgage after brexit.
The end of labour?
Apparently Hammond is going for House rebuilding program before reducing debt...................sounds like Corbyn to me ?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
The end of labour?
There are benefits and negatives to the right to buy policy. One misconception is the entire scheme being Thatcher's brainchild. She initially argued caution at what she saw as selling off state assets and she took some persuasion in 1980. Initially, it was argued that the policy would bridge the class divide but between 1980 and 1981, over one million council houses were sold off at discounted prices. Under new Labour by 1999, Blair reduced the discount to just £25,000 and there was a vast reduction in homes sold due to Labour's lack of building new home replacement stock. By 2012, Blair's discount was thrown out by David Cameron who dramatically increased the discount to £77,900 except for London, where it was increased to £103,900. That saw increases in sales from 3,744, in 2012-13 to 16,519 in 2014-15.
Look, a paragraph !
Last year, George Osborne extended the right to buy policy to include housing association stock, which added a further 1.3 housing stock available to buy at discounted prices. We won't see a repeat of the 1980 sales, simply because that amount of houses are no longer available.
Look, another paragraph.
Until such time, we adopt a national living wage and ditch a national basic wage, lower income earners are destined to a life of tenancy, even at the hands of unscrupulous private lets, seeing, only the landlords and authorities get wealthier, and ensuring house prices remain ridiculously out of reach for the lower income bracket, widening the class divide. I noted words from a housing expert once, who stated, in the main, the biggest opponents to the right to buy policy, are homeowners. Another benefit of the right to buy policy, often overlooked, is the home becoming an asset to pay for care, late in life, and of which would be state burden, otherwise. Right to buy also offers benefits to a mixed community. Communities who see no right to buy, are at the mercy of councils who tend to house like with like, leading to ethnic estates.
Look, another paragraph.
The negative is obvious, ie the loss of housing stock. Only this happens regardless of right to buy or not. Councils have found the sheer complexity of the bedroom tax, in that they can not force anyone to downsize. If a family take residence in their 20's or 30's, after children have flown the nest, housing stock often see's one person occupying family homes, meaning the original tenant has the house for life. It's therefore, little difference than the right to buy policy, but at least by buying, there is the asset there to pay for care in old age. Another trap is the discounted price forces negative equity in the property and owners finding themselves stuck.
Look, a paragraph !
Last year, George Osborne extended the right to buy policy to include housing association stock, which added a further 1.3 housing stock available to buy at discounted prices. We won't see a repeat of the 1980 sales, simply because that amount of houses are no longer available.
Look, another paragraph.
Until such time, we adopt a national living wage and ditch a national basic wage, lower income earners are destined to a life of tenancy, even at the hands of unscrupulous private lets, seeing, only the landlords and authorities get wealthier, and ensuring house prices remain ridiculously out of reach for the lower income bracket, widening the class divide. I noted words from a housing expert once, who stated, in the main, the biggest opponents to the right to buy policy, are homeowners. Another benefit of the right to buy policy, often overlooked, is the home becoming an asset to pay for care, late in life, and of which would be state burden, otherwise. Right to buy also offers benefits to a mixed community. Communities who see no right to buy, are at the mercy of councils who tend to house like with like, leading to ethnic estates.
Look, another paragraph.
The negative is obvious, ie the loss of housing stock. Only this happens regardless of right to buy or not. Councils have found the sheer complexity of the bedroom tax, in that they can not force anyone to downsize. If a family take residence in their 20's or 30's, after children have flown the nest, housing stock often see's one person occupying family homes, meaning the original tenant has the house for life. It's therefore, little difference than the right to buy policy, but at least by buying, there is the asset there to pay for care in old age. Another trap is the discounted price forces negative equity in the property and owners finding themselves stuck.