Blah Blah

Whilst no end of hideous people are rewarded with honours, there certainly is a case for objecting to IDS. It is not just his overseeing of Welfare Reform that is the issue, but that this is a man that has lied throughout his career, on his CV, in Parliament and (like Boris) has never been made to account for any of it. While he oversaw the DWP, the OCO had to get a court order to force him to release figures around suicide rates and deaths of claimants incorrectly found fit to work. He put in place a system whee the decision of disability and mental health is not made by a medical professional, but a clerk, looking for 'descriptors' in the answers given by claimants at their assessments. Information that was not available to claimants initally to prepare them for those assessments, but was eventually leaked by insiders to organisations that could help claimants. Now imagine if you were only to be found suffering from a condition if you described that condition and its impacts by using a defined set of words? For all those reasons, I've signed the petition.

Parks cost money to maintain and keep open. Cars pollute, not only the park but the route to the park. Exemptions from charges could be made for those with blue badges and genuine disability. Most people do not drive cars to their local park. Most parks do not have car parks either. So some perspective on this is common sense.

Mahoody. of course Momentum have a logo, like pretty much every organisation does. So what? I was responding to the false claim that Momentum had a flag with a hammer and sickle on it. At least try to follow the logic of the conversation! As for entryism, of course it is a problem. But how can an expelled member of the Labour Party also be a member of Momentum. The answer is they can't. That is the point. The Tory Party have also suffered the problem of entryism. UKIP members have been encouraged to join the Tories for two years now, to help Boris become leader. So both parties are being taken over by factional interests that do not represent a majority consensus, and that is a preptty dire place for UK politics to be in.

Momentum do not have any flag to be fair, and while many old time militant types are drawn to it, many more are other members are not old enough to remember who Militant were. Lansman imposed the rule that to be a member of Momentum, you also had to be a member of the Labour Party, precisely to try and keep out those old time expelled members. Some local groups ignored the rule. Momentum is a bit more diverse than those on the outside realise. It is certainly not stuffed with Stalinists but nor is it a truly democratic organisation either. That is the problem. And that is why it is easy for militant types to power grab in the way they have.

No Cella, it does not need to go. You need to stop trying to end the discussion others were having before engaging in a tit for tat that you seem hell bend on keeping going. Let the rest of us have a discussion if we want. You don't have to engage with it.

cella Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You've already tried many times to give your version of what a racist is and nobody, apart from > the tinies, are buying it so just go away. The idea that you are now trans supporting in there > somewhere is cracked. Quite. He has been exposed on more than one occasion for the Tommy Robinson loving racist that he really is. He also fails to understand the meaning of champagne socialist as well.

Seven of you sharing an IP still means that you whined to your housemates to put in false complaints though doesn't it - which was I think Admins point ;)

Today there were a group of pro Brexit demonstrators outside parliament with placards and you would think, having finally got a government that will deliver it, that they would be done. But no, their gripe now is that they want a no deal Brexit. Yes folks, they really do think walking away from any trading arrangement with the EU is necessary for their Brexit. I asked one guy holding a no deal sign if he understood what no deal would mean for business who trade with countries in the EU. And he answered by saying he was one of the uneducated majority so he didn't need to understand the those things. That is Brexit in a nutshell.

Grove boy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blah Blah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > And so is Johnson kicking 21 MPs out of his > party > > for disagreeing with him a fact, so drop the > > counter claim games Grove Boy, before someone > > calls you a hypocrite ;) > > > That would be a shock, a corbyn cultist name > calling. That's all his crowd of middle class > brats have done, point the finger,deflect any > criticism onto the tories and scream racist at > people, look where it got you. The tories had a > plan whilst labour pointed out how naughty they > thought the tories were, you are doing it now. The > tories done it first argument is weak and it > doesn't mean it was okay for labour to follow > suit, student id politics at it's worst. God help > anyone that disagree's with saint Corbyn and his > cronies. > > > https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/18112219.labour-mp > -lloyd-russell-moyle-calls-anti-corbyn-colleagues- > c-ts/ I am no Corbynista as a simple search of my posting history on this forum can confirm. So go and educate yourself and come back when you know what you are talking about. The only person name calling is YOU btw. Pointing out a fact is not name calling. It is a FACT that Boris Johnson expelled 21 MPs simply for defying the whip. Stop being a hypocrite and acknowledge the significance of that. And stop assuming everyone that calls out your hypocrisy is a Corbynite too. You just make yourself look very stupid otherwise. You can ditch the inverse snobbery too while you are at it.

And so is Johnson kicking 21 MPs out of his party for disagreeing with him a fact, so drop the counter claim games Grove Boy, before someone calls you a hypocrite ;)

What's your view on a party expelling 21 MPs for having a different view to the leader Grove Boy? Ever heard of glass houses and stones?

Agree with the above on membership. This is especially true of the Labour party where leadership contests are open OMOV systems for all members. In my opinion, the real damage was done by allowing any Tom Dick and Harry to vote for just ?3 in that first leadership election at which Corbyn was elected. And sadly, many moderates have terminated their memberships since. Everyone's fear is that the next leader is merely a puppet for the existing leadership. The level of denial from the Corbyn camp is deafening. To see Caludia Webb trying to suggest there were some good things to come out of the election on Newsnight last night typifies the problem.

He wants to put maximum pressure on the EU to agree a trade deal within the time frame. Because with that majority, he can repeal any law he makes as quickly as he sets it. The question is whether or not anyone believes Boris will really leave with no deal. He of all people knows the cost of doing that. So we shall see. On the new leader of the LP. RLB has no presence and will fail just like Corbyn before her. She is the preferred choice of the outgoing leadership because she is one of them, and through her they can continue their real agenda of a longer term socialist revolution. Will she fire Milne for example and employ her own advisors? I bet she won't. And the deluded naval gazing will continue. Personally I think the way back lies with someone like Lisa Nandy. She has been very impressive in debates, is excellent on detail and would grow in the role. Everyone might agree that Niccola Sturgeon was the best leader during the campaign, and the SNP gained by it. In my opinion, Nandy could be as good as Sturgeon given the chance. But whoever the party chooses, until they start to understand that more of the same in a different cloak is going to continue to fail, they are a lost party. Worth taking a look at 'The Wilderness Years' on youtube for a reminder of how the Labour Party have been here before, and how hard it was for someone (Kinnock) to take on the rabid hard left and save it form itself.

Take all of the above advice. Even if this landlady is abiding by the law (and lots to suggest she isn't),keeping the whole deposit for an old tv is unreasonable.

Neither main party is ever history DF. Politics is swings and roundabouts as you well know. And we have an electoral system that does not proportionately reflect how people vote either. Our Governments are consistently made from parties that got less than half the votes cast. Labour will come back eventually.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Labour was disastrously, catastrophically bad, an > agony to behold. A coterie of Corbynites cared > more about gripping power within the party than > saving the country by winning the election. The > national executive committee, a slate of nodding > Corbynite place-persons, disgraced the party with > its sectarian decisions. Once it was plain in > every poll and focus group that Corbynism was > electoral arsenic, they should have propelled him > out, but electoral victory was secondary. > > https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec > /13/jeremy-corbyn-labour-manifesto-antisemitism-br > exit I agree with this. I was a party member. The last three years have been more about changing the party structure, deselecting MPs, making sure the preferred left candidates are elected to governing bodies like the NEC. The whole this has been a power grab, engineered by Lansman and Momentum. These people do not reflect the wider electorate. They are fringe ideologues, born out of the militant movement of the 80s. The only question is how many elections do Labour have to lose, before they step aside.

Captain Marvel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 'Blair increased public sector personnel by three > million' > > You say that like it's a good thing. > > Anyway, it could be argued ad nauseam, I'm just > suggesting that it looks like the intent is there, > and that clearly not everybody sees demons when > they look at the Conservatives. Then maybe you would like to take a look at this afternoon's headline where No. 12 now says it no longer guarantees the worker and environmental protections it promised to guarantee to get Boris's deal through it's first reading. Still not buying the line of Turkey's voting for Christmas I suppose. And on Blair, after 16 years of Thatcherite under investment that left our schools and hospitals crumbling, I would say those extra personnel absolutely were a good thing. The point is that 50k is a drop in the ocean in a population of 68 million. Any difference is unlikely to be felt with longer life expectancy and growing needs for adult social care.

What they say they will do and what they actually do still remains to be seen Captain Marvel. One of the odd things about investment is how much of it finds its way into the coffers and share portfolios of big contractors too close to ministerial private interests, as opposed to being genuinely felt on the ground. Where is the investment for small business, education and the individual? Tory economic thinking tends to favour big business and grandiose infrastructure, over that start up some long term unemployed person with skills could get going in a declining region. Fifty thousand nurses may also sound great, but Blair increased public sector personnel by three million. Which figure do you think is the one where people really do see a difference in their local community? We all remember the Downing Street speeches where Thatcher quote St.Francis and May promised to help the poor. Neither delivered. Words are easy. Actions speak louder.

I think Louisa got closest to why the working classes have fragmented and didn't get behind Labour this time. Corbyn is a republican, but the working classes traditionally are not republicans, and nor are they interested in ideological arguments around radical politics. Corbyn and his stalwarts had become a parody of a student revolutionary movement. The manifesto was naive and failed completely to understand the underlying aspirational culture of the electorate. People don't want socialism. They want opportunity. Access to decent jobs, owning their own home, good education and healthcare, and so on. All things that a fairer form of capitalism can deliver through a mixed economy. When Labour makes that case, it wins elections. The next leader needs to be someone free of controversial baggage, who can make those arguments and win back working class support, while persuading the middle classes that a fairer society is a more harmonious one. What has gone wrong since the financial crash of 2008 (and let's remember that was a global crash that emanated from the USA), is that austerity policy, felt hardest by those on the ground, the poorest, has been exploited by the likes of Farage (and a xenophobic underbelly led by the far and alt right) who created bogeymen to deflect from the real culprits that have delivered this unfair system of capitalism, namely our own successive governments, that have stripped away upward social mobility. A good example of this is housing supply. The statistics around changing demographics, affordability, non replacement of sold off social homes, and failure to build enough new homes, have become thrown out for some nonsense about immigration. It's almost as though our own governments have had nothing to do with it through their own regressive policies! That is the cognitive dissonance at play here. Labour were right about quite a few things. We do live in a world that is being asset and profit stripped by a ridiculously small number of corporations and individuals and at a time where a growing global population is increasingly aspiration. These two things are going to clash at some point. And what government do to tax and regulation matters in addressing this. This will become an increasing area of discussion in the future. There is nothing that Boris offers in way of addressing any of this. And there is real concern that his Brexit means taking the UK into tax haven territory. Well tax havens increasingly use indirect taxation to fill the deficits lost through direct tax cuts. And the people most affected by that tax structure, are the poorest. But it is also true to say that Boris is not as home and dry as he thinks he is. He now has to deliver on all those promises. He also has around 80 MPs who represent former Labour heartlands, where working class people feel disenfranchised precisely because of the broken structures I cite above. It is not in the Tory mindset to do the kinds of things that need to be done to fix some of those things. So for me, the thing to watch over the next five years, is how hard those 80 MPs work to try and move the direction of the Tory party to genuinely serve those constituents. Or will they not bother? Worth remembering that Boris is the PM who threw out MPs for defying the whip. This is dark territory. Also the noises being made about redressing the power balance between the courts, civil service, Parliament and the Executive are dark territory. There will be plenty for Labour to chew on in opposition, if they finally find the right leader, and a real chance for the Tory party to step into the center ground, if they choose to.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd like to know who these 'people' are at risk,(or even extreme danger') from 5 years of Boris- I could go so far as to liken the thought of 5 years of Labour to the 'Great Leap Forward' and we all > know how that turned out! Here you go. Here are some of those who have died directly because of the polices of the last nine years, policies that will not change under Boris. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/may/13/suicides-of-benefit-claimants-reveal-dwp-flaws-says-inquiry https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/a-man-has-killed-himself-because-he-was-found-fit-to-work-exposing-the-monstrous-cruelty-of-the-dwp-10511436.html https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/12/stephanie-bottrill-worried-bedroom-tax-committed-suicide-coroner https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/09/david-clapson-benefit-sanctions-death-government-policies https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/27/thousands-died-after-fit-for-work-assessment-dwp-figures I could list hundreds of these stories. And then don't forget this either! https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/oct/01/homeless-deaths-in-2018-rise-at-highest-level-ons https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48692703 Stop embarrassing yourself with your willful ignorance.

Hemingway Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As for the Labour Party and antisemitism, the AS > of the hard left is not the AS of fascism or the > hard right > > @#$%& me you couldn?t make it up! What? Is it a > gentler, kinder anti-semitism? You really can not cease with the gaslighting can you? No minority should be in fear of a party, no-one would disagree with that. But to equate a Corbyn government with the kind of government that really does give minorities something to fear is nonsense. The hard left AS is an obsession with Zionism, Isreal, and her geo-political standing in the world, whilst having no actual power to affect any of that in any direct way, bar enabling negotiations for some kind of regional peace. And crimes of AS against Jewish citizens are covered by criminal law. Next you will be suggesting that Corbyn will remove any such legal protections. The only valid argument is the same one afforded Boris, in that language and ideas that embolden racists, homophobes, antisemites etc are unacceptable no matter who they come from. Criticising Corbyn but excusing Boris is just pot calling kettle black. You are looking for hypocrisy on one side only, but can't see your own by doing so.

Hemingway Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You and Sephiroth need to understand the difference between a racists individual and institutional racism, if you don't then look it uP, if you do then shame on you, defending racism Whataboutery whilst many British Jews are actually terrified about a Corbyn Government. The Labour Party, like only the BNP among political parties, is under investigation by the EHRC. the earl submissions from previously loyal members of its own staff are horrific, Jewish MPS have been hounded out of the party. Comparing it to some of Johnsons remarks is disgusting as equivalent. Cleary anti-semitism doesn't matter to you. Standing up against racism is not Virtue Signalling. Best not to patronise me with definitions of racism. I can destroy you on this issue with a long essay of how appeasement of racist language from mainstream politicians feeds into a wider narrative that emboldens genuine racists and bigots within society. It is no accident that attacks on minorities and migrants have gone up since Brexit and since the election of Trump. No accident at all. Have a think about that. As for the Labour Party and antisemitism, the AS of the hard left is not the AS of fascism or the hard right. No-one on the hard left is seeking to deport Jews like those on the far right regularly talk of deporting migrants and muslims. AS on the hard left takes the form of anti-Isreali sentiment, wrapped up in anti-capitalist political ideology, which is why it ultimately taps into the same antisemitic tropes found on the far right. But I also understand how the Labour Party works, and how most of the PLP do NOT belong to the hard left. The power for Corbyn to shape policy in those terms is actually far more limited than you realise. You would never see the Labour Party expelling MPs for defying the whip in the same way Johnson did to those 21 MPs on Brexit. So again, have a good think about where the dictatorship really is. As you can see, I actually have a very good understanding of prejudice and it's manifestations. I just don't ignore one side in order to demonise the other. So take your gas lighting bs somewhere else sunshine. I don't have the faith Sephiroth shows above in you displaying a balanced perspective anytime soon.

Anything to say about Boris's racism and homophobia then. Anything at all? And let's also not forget about the British woman languishing in an Iranian jail because of Boris's lazy stupidity. The man is shameful and yet has no shame. Virtue signalling indeed.

Boris would have had exactly the same problems as May and will continue to have problems getting his Bill through the Lords unamended. The Lords can in fact, hold it up for a year even as primary legislation. No majority in the House for Boris there ;)

Yep Uncle really is the lowest of the low. He is so stupid that in his typically xenophobic rant, he actually cites a net economics gain from immigration! Hilarious.