JoeLeg

bodsier Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > After many years of thatcher and Blair, some have > been indoctrinated to believe that a move to the > right is the way forward. We have been duped > into believing this, irrespective of whether it > benefits us in the long term. Right now the rich > are getting richer, and we have ascending numbers > of food banks and homeless. Wages have been > pushed down, employment rights decimated. The NHS > is being dismantled, along with our education > system. Wars for profit, and the displacement of > millions of families. All a product of a move to > the right. If that is what the centrist/Tory vote > is about....not sure I want any part of it. > Persuade me. Don't be deliberately obtuse; I'm not trying to persuade you to be part of that and you know it. All I'm doing is pointing out that there's a lot of people who DO think that way, and who view the direction this country has taken as a good thing. For the record, and seeing as you need it pointed out, I'm far from being one of those people. But I recognise they are in the majority, and so if we want to affect real change they are the ones we need to persuade. It's not you or me. And to do that we need to work with them and stop them seeing Labour as a lunatic fringe. Corbym is not doing that. Stop thinking that the hard left is the majority in the UK. It's not, and if we want radical social change it has to be done from within a system that is, and often has, been opposing such change.

No? Ok then...

> > I really dont get the idea that he wont win an > election, he represents the majority.......those > living on ?25,000 a year or less which is the > majority I believe. Do you honestly, really, truly believe that everyone on less than ?25,000 a year is automatically a supporter of Corbyn? From where do you get that? The Tories, LibDems and indeed UKIP would beg to differ. He really doesn't represent the majority, but good luck to you if you believe it, and you're going to get a nasty shock at the next GE. Those trying to get him out > realise that, they just don't want politics to > change in the way it would if he gets in. Those trying to block him want the Labour Party to be electable. Now we can argue all day about what Labour should be and why policies it should follow, but frankly it's naive to think they're scared of him. Momentum has hijacked the left wing of the party, and I'm old enough to remember the damage done to Labour in the 80's by the Militant wing of Labour. Meanwhile the Tories ran amok as the left tried to put itself back together. I see frightening parallels now, and telling yourself that somehow Corbyn has the guaranteed vote of everyone on a low income (which he really really doesn't) and thus can win - and thus is justified in letting the party tear itself apart - is not realistic. We need an opposition, we need a party willing to speak up for all society, but we do not need reasonable voices drowned out by righteous fury on the left that is simply anger and frustration rendered impotent by infighting and Tory tactics. Edit - if you don't understand the power held by the centrist popular vote under our current electoral model (which is the real problem in my opinion), then you have no hope of understanding where the real political battlefield is and why Corbyn is doomed. It shouldn't be like this, but until we get PR and mandatory voting the true political desires of the electorate will never be known.

And here we have the crux of the matter regarding Corbyn. A lot of his supporters really are in a bubble - large swathes of the country just don't agree with the policies he personally is associated with. It's really not that different from the idea that Blair contaminated Labour or that Thatcher was contaminating the Tories. In the same way Corbyn is putting off a lot of centrist voters. Sorry, but face facts. This is not a left-leaning country. A party led by Corbyn will never see power, and if you're ok with that then crack on. But if you want Labour to be elected then wake up and smell the coffee; those swing voters you need are never voting for Corbyn. I don't particularly like it, or see it as a reason to roll over and take it, but that's the political landscape in the UK.

Jenny1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd agree that Boris is dangerous. Primarily to > us. Oh yes, that was what I meant!

Nah, there's a plan there. What it is, I have no idea. And as I say, only time will tell if Boris can actually do this. But remember he went from lumbering buffoon to two-term Mayor, got himself round the Cabinet table and (albeit without realising he actually would) persuaded a whole lot of people to vote us out of Europe on nothing but sound bites and vague promises. He's an excellent manipulator of other people's view of him. Boris is dangerous.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary ?! > > WTF ?! I'm not even a little bit surprised. Personally I thought he'd be Home Secretary, but the fact is there's way more to Boris than meets the eye. Whether this will turn out to be a good idea or not, who knows, but May doesn't strike me as the type to make an appointment like this without careful thought.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I did vote UKIP once JoeLeg which I suspect in > your book is equivalent to voting for the BNP... Well, not in the slightest. UKIP and the BNP are completely different parties. (No, don't everyone get wound up now; we all know that support of one does not automatically equal support of the other. There may well be crossover views in some supporters, but I personally am not about to equate the two political parties). Look, mate, you accuse others of making assumptions, but frankly you make an awful lot yourself. You at least are consistent - you voted UKIP and voted Leave. Fair enough. My issue is with those who didn't vote before now, voted in the referendum, and then will not vote again. In my view, it's negligent to involve oneself in such a momentous decision and then refuse to take part in the political process after. I seriously doubt you're about to get the result you hoped for in some ways, so I reckon it's up to you (and other Leave voters) to decide whether you're prepared to live with whatever comes out the other end.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe he didn't vote because he knew that when it > boils down to the nitty gritty the EU would trump > our constitution anyway and poke it's snivelling > nose into everything we do... so what is the > point..... So I asked you before if you've ever voted BNP, and if not why not? You didn't answer, so I'll ask this; did you vote at all?

1922 commitee say there will be no more election, and Gove is backing May fully (no doubt hoping to keep hold of his job!). So its basically a coronation now. We shall see what happens next, but personally I'm grateful it's been resolved fast, and glad that if we do have to Brexit, at least the person in charge is willing to slow it down enough to do it carefully.

Some good news at least. Leadsom is way out of her depth, hopefully she realised that.

I think Leadsom will win. Which is pretty bad for the country because I think she's manifestly unqualified for the job. Putin will run rings round her.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So you AM are assuming that I am racist and > xenophobic like the ignorant arrogant middle class > remain twats That's a great way to paint yourself as holding the moral high ground... > And JoeLeg because Tony Bliar failed to educate or > train an entire generation of schoolkids finding > it cheaper to allow the East Europeans in 2 years > before France and Germany did. Well this may well be true, and Blair holds much responsibility for the state this nation is in, but frankly the rot set in long before him, as standards in education, training and frankly ability dropped in the UK. Consider this, why did the Polish builders get such a good reputation so fast, for example? Could it be that British workers were becoming seen as lazy and workshy? > I notice that Matthew Parris does not ask himself > WHY the support for Brexit I suspect he knows the reasons, he's a pretty smart guy. much like you lot- > since you have made up you uninformed minds I know the reasons too. I recognise why a lot of people voted Leave. But I think, as I said, that those problems are far more deeply rooted than the EU. We're talking about attitudes, both of the public and our governments, such as they are. I firmly believe that businesses - good ones - hire the best staff they can get. And over the years successive governments have damaged and undermined our education and work ethic to the extent the immigrants have come to be seen as vital. It's certainly true in my industry! I believe that as we part ways with the EU we will be forced to face up to these truths, and I think it's going to be unpleasant for a lot of people who thought that they knew why they had trouble getting jobs. It's true that soon we will be theoretically able to hold the government to account over everything that happens here, but strangely I don't think that's going to fix everything.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Matthew Parris states > ?You just don?t get it, do you?? Brexiteers have > crowed to me: ?You?re out of touch.? They are > right. I was. I did not know my own country. I do > now. And I like it a little bit less. > > Kind of sums it up really- London, > Scotland....have no idea what people elsewhere > have been suffering and there was no light of a > London job at the end of the tunnel like there has > been in the past. And people out in the shires sometimes (not always) have no idea that a vibrant multi-cultural society is often of more benefit, choosing instead to believe that it is the nasty foreigners who caused all this, instead of possibly successive governments destroying the ability of communities to stay viable and economically afloat. Why aren't British people already doing the jobs that immigrants are doing? Answer me that.

Edited and deleted because life is too short and it's not worth it.

I'm just going to say this - and I'm sure it's one of those coincidences - but both Villager and Green Goose have a similar posting style. And they registered their accounts one day apart. Weird. But life is weird these days. Anyway, I'm more of the mind of LL516. The best way forward in negotiation is calm heads and a firm but fair attitude. If we try to intimidate or threaten the EU it's likely they will screw us just to screw us. We need to decide what we are not willing to give ground over, and be flexible on everything else. And with all due respect, commercial contracts and politics are different. Not much different, but those differences are important. Security cooperation and immigration concerns tend not to weigh as heavily for starters. But what do I know?

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm from a former market town, now part of a > conurbation. House prices and the local economy > are reasonably healthy. There are a few but not > many pockets of urban poor. Fruit and veg picking > when I was young was by kids and settled > travelers. Assume that this will now be by > Eastern Europeans. It is conservative with a > small and large C. A pretty area with views out to > Wales and the South West. Excellent transport > links > > Yet the high street is dead, market long since > gone, so to many of the pubs. I've seen links to > Facebook groups 'celebrating' how dull the place > is and others to some sort of 'reclaim the flag of > St George' - not quite EDL. > > It was 60/40 Brexit. I really don't have any > connection with the town of my upbringing any more > and feel ashamed of it. The EU has nothing to do > with the sate of the place. > > Can anyone convince me otherwise? No, because this is exactly the point. So many problems in this nation are our own doing. The discussion is so wide ranging as to belong elsewhere, but the simple fact is that globalisation and the decline of traditional industries is not solely the fault of the EU. I concede the point that it is contributory, however we live now in a very inter-connected world and the behaviour of China, for one, is of far more concern. But the inhabitants feel abandoned, and personally I blame successive governments for not doing enough to regenerate such areas. I do understand how they've come to vote like that, but when nothing has changed in ten or twenty years, who will they hold accountable?

As I said, a position too stupid to be worth arguing with. The idea that the a) the French are going to care, when they have much bigger sticks to hit us with, and b) the British public is going to accept being told they can't have French wine because of 'politics' is so risible that the inevitable rebuttals are almost pointless, as it's unlikely anybody who forms that idea in the first place is open to counter-points, as LL516 is finding out!

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Which one is the more likely to morph into another > Thatcher? In pure 'Thatcherite' terms, provably Leadsom. But I reckon the Tory party would be wary of that. Whatever ones personal opinions of her, they agree that she threw collective Cabinet responsibility out he window by the late 80's, and I don't think they want to return to that. I also think both May and Leadsom wil want to avoid the inevitable comparison. If you mean in terms of clarity of purpose, taking no crap and pursuing what they feel is the right path for Britain, well, a) let's be honest, we'll never see anyone like Thatcher again, and b) I reckon they both will be fierce advocates for what they see as the right path, so that could be considered a similarity, but they also will have learnt from what went wrong with Thatcher, and so on answer I guess I would say neither, as they both will need and want to be seen as their own person, and not some kind of heir to Thatcher.

I'm no fan of Theresa May, but at this time we need experience and Leadsom does not have it. She should do a backroom deal with May to get a prime position in the Cabinet in return for dropping out. Five or ten years from now she'll be a much more plausible PM (not saying I'd vote for her, but recognising that she will likely have the experience by them to be capable of the job). Very glad Gove is out. I think May is the one we need at this time. I doubt I'll like half the stuff she does, but I kind of trust her not to do anything stupid during Brexit negotiations. I think she'll be just the right kind of hard head we need.

TwoScoops Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's not blind optimism, you've seen the reasons > and a clear acknowledgement of the scenarios. > Everyone has a different view and mine is that due > to aforementioned points I'm optimistic the UK > will strike a good deal. That why I voted Leave. > > Your reasons for blind negativity don't appear to > be forthcoming though. ( suggesting 17.4m people > are more racist or stupid than you gets filed as > ridiculous I'm afraid ) If you read my post again I said "many (not all)" voted with their prejudices, and I'm sorry to say that's an assessment I stand by. While fully accepting the effect many communities outside London feel they have sufferered under - and agreeing that they have a good case and understanding why they voted Leave - I also believe that many people (not all, just so we're clear) used this to protest not so much at the government but more at what they perceive as the reason for their ills; foreign people. These were the racists, and he increase in nasty attitudes being openly displayed since the result backs this up. At no point did I suggest what you I insinuate and you know that. I do not have blind negativity. I am pessimistic, because we are essentially the guinea pig for exiting the EU. How we are treated will help other nations decide if they too wish to exit, and I'm sure you'd agree the distinct possibility exists that the EU may wish to try and deter others, by being harsh with us. I'm not saying I don't believe we will strike a good deal. I'm saying that we need to realise how plausible it is that this will not end up to people's satisfaction. People who voted Leave did so, as you say, for many reasons. Some of it was prejudice, but many others want a variety of things. I am extremely worried that whatever deal comes out will be unsatisfactory to many Leave voters, and I wonder where that will lead us. I'm not sure any government can find a way through that minefield. So no, I don't think we are automatically doomed, but neither am I convinced yet that the EU will let us go amicably. Everyone is keeping their cards close to their chest, and we as a nation don't have a PM wil lead us through it. Already we are on the back foot, as the EU can organise while we fiddle.

TwoScoops Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd love to see everyone a bit more positive about > that and accepting the future Oh don't worry, we've now accepted that a vote in which it seems a lot of people (not all) voted with their latent prejudices has won. - even acknowledging > that it might even be better. Very possible. If it's not then you'll be to blame. I think the uk has a > great negotiating position Then you've started believing your own hype. I'd respectfully suggest you think more carefully about potential pitfalls ahead, and what we could be asked to agree to in return for access to the single market. so lets hope they do a > good job of it !!!!!!! Hope indeed. There's a lot we need to hope for, and very little we can predict, but the blind optimism which makes anyone think the UK will be able to run the table in negotiations is dangerous.

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The problem you face with that strategy, GG, is > > that - AFAIK - each of the 27 EU countries has > a > > veto on whatever trade deal is settled. And, > as > > we know, you have to do the trade deal with the > EU > > - not each individual country. > > Sorry Loz, but effectively the EU doesnt work > quite like that in reality. The EU Commission is > the most powerful entity there and they are > effectively controlled by the innerr clique of 6 > ie France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands , Belgium > and Luxembrg. Out of this 6, France and Germany > hold the clout. If Merker doesnt want it, then it > doesnt get through. The other 22 are just marginal > players This is so stupid I can't even be bothered to argue with it.

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Green Goose wrote: > > > > >Germans dont drive many Jags and RR's > > > > In 2015 Europe was Jaguar Land Rover's largest > > market with over 110,000 sales, representing > over > > 25% of total global sales, and sales in Germany > > rose by 28%. So, basically, you're utterly > > wrong. > > > > > http://www.jaguarlandrover.com/gl/en/investor-rela > > > > tions/news/2016/01/08/jaguar-land-rover-reports-st > > > rong-full-year-global-sales-for-2015/ > > Read my post please. > > I said "Germans dont drive many Jags and RR's" but > you have said ""EUROPE" was Jaguar Land Rovers > largest market". There is a big difference. > > Remember, France =wine whilst Germany = cars when > it comes to targetted negotiations. Please keep > up. HAHAHAHA! You really think it'll be that easy? That it'll come down to threatening the French over Chardonnay and Pinot Noir? You're deluded "The EU will compromise on free movement in due course. It will eventually revert to a "Common Market" for trade." Well, you seem to know the future better than people like Mark Carney, Boris Johnson, Theresa May, Angela Merkel and all the rest, so I guess that's all settled. Thanks for telling us exactly what the future holds. While you're at it could I have the winners at Ascot and future share prices? Thanks.

"You miss my basic point. We should only target France and Germany. Forget your EU wide statistics. Hit the two countries that export most to the UK. Divide and conquer!" Sorry, but you miss the basic point - we are NOT going to be negotiating just with France and Germany. We will be dealing with thre entire EU. It will not be possible to divide and conquer. And as for your 'stuff French wine' position (to take just one). You're seriously going to tell British people that hey can't have this or that product because of trade deals and such. Telling them only certain cards will be available? Telling them that in a globalised world like ours products are limited by politics? They won't accept that. And yes, Nissan is here. Will they be staying? I'm really glad you aren't part of he negotiating time. Rook makes good, well thought out points which give me pause for thought. Your reactionary insistence that we can run rough-shod over the EU is scary and divisive. We will make no long term friends by trying to kick them around the table.