BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Jul 17 - 05:20 AM

For those who don't see the spin, here is a clip from the Sun's article in the first link (the address is missing a leading 'h')

"Last night the new members of the committee vowed to hold her more accountable for her actions.

Roy Bentham, who booted out a Liverpool council cabinet member from his spot on the committee, told the Liverpool Echo: "Luciana needs to get on board quite quickly now."

Do I need to draw people's attention to how ONE person has been translated into several?

Remember the other committee members disassociated themselves from the comments the individual made.

(Also Roy didn't "boot out" anyone, any more that any person elected "boots out" their predecessor.)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jul 17 - 06:20 AM

Is this really the best you can come up with, Keith? Wassamatter? Run out of antisemitism slurs, have we?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Jul 17 - 06:44 AM

In fairness to the professor it was his attack dog who first raised this.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 17 - 12:52 PM

Steve, I clarified a point for Rag that he said he wondered about because no link had been provided.
What is your objection?
Why are you always on my case?
What has "anti-Semitism slurs" to do with anything?

You are just trying to stir up shit and cause trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Jul 17 - 04:45 PM

You really are a lying little toe-rag aren't you professor

"Steve, I clarified a point for Rag that he said he wondered about because no link had been provided!

Iains, bless him, provided a link. You and your rottweiler did not.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jul 17 - 04:57 AM

I do not lie Rag.
You posted,
"I wonder what the source is for Teritowellings latest outburst. He has once again failed to give a link to his source. "

Teribus probably thought a link unnecessary as the story was widely reported.

You wondered about it so I provided TWO LINKS just 80 minutes later, before anyone else did.

You lie, I do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Jul 17 - 05:47 AM

Your link did not contain the word APOLOGISE did it.


Iains link did contain the word APOLOGISE.


We still do not know Terikins source because he has failed to provide a link.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jul 17 - 02:10 PM

Your link did not contain the word APOLOGISE did it.

Yes.
What is wrong with you?
One more time!


"Ms Berger has subsequently been told she needs to "get on board quite quickly now" and "apologise" for past criticisms of Mr Corbyn. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/06/momentum-win-control-labour-branch-demand-mp-apologises-criticising/

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Jul 17 - 02:44 PM

You didn't link to the Telegraph originally though did you, you linked the the Guardian. The link you provided was:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/06/labour-mps-critical-of-corbyn-fear-deselection-after-get-on-board-warning

In that link there is no mention of the word APOLOGISE

Futhermore Terikins didn't provide any link, so no change there.

In your next post there was no "blue clicky" and I have far better things to be with my time than follow empty posts.

(PS. I have now found one has to subscribe to read the whole article)

Eventually Iains DID provide a link, all credit to him for doing so.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jul 17 - 04:08 PM

Raggy, Terrikins didn't bother to provide a link because Terrikins has long since realised that the likes of yourself, "Good man" Shaw, Jom, Gnome, pfr, etc are only interested in arguing points and no matter what "evidence" (Usually easily substantiated) put in front of you, for you yourselves to check - you generally do not bother, blinded as you are by your idiotic ideology.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jul 17 - 04:21 PM

Terrikins has long since realised that the likes of yourself, "Good man" Shaw, Jom, Gnome, pfr, etc are only interested in arguing points

Why bring me in to it it Terilove? I have not really been involved.

As it happens, Keith's original link does not contain the word 'apologise'. It really is quite simple. Click the link. Do a search on the word. See if comes back with anything. It doesn't.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jul 17 - 06:10 PM

Ah more passive-aggressive crap from Gnome.

Apparently now that the Labour Party have realised what scrapping University Tuition fees is going to cost - it is now no longer an election manifesto pledge - with a bill estimated at over £100 billion the Shadow Labour education spokesperson has said that scrapping these fees is only an ambition and that it will not become a firm pledge until Jeremy & Co find some way of paying for it. The lady also conceded that the cost of tertiary education is NOT putting off students from lower income families.

Just as well Corbyn didn't get in just think of the anger of all those student vote he tried to buy once they found out that it was all just an electioneering stunt.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jul 17 - 06:59 PM

There is no manifesto in operation at the moment as there is no election in the offing. And I don't know where you magicked a hundred billion from. Even the most rabidly anti-Corbyn Daily Mailite zealot hasn't come up with a figure anything like that. Have a nice cup of tea and have an early night. You'll feel much better in the morning.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jul 17 - 07:57 PM

The overall student debt is around £75 billion. It's a meaningless number as most student debt will not be paid off. The actual cost of scrapping the debt will be about eight billion a year or less. Whilst this is not insignificant, can we please lose the scaremongering?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 04:32 AM

Nothing passive-aggressive in my posting. Just facts. Sorry if they don't fit in with your predefined notions.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 05:04 AM

I gave two links in quick succession, before Rag or anyone else could respond.

Rag, Telegraph links are too long for the Mudcat link maker.
I gave the address.
You can subscribe for free to read several articles a week.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 05:29 AM

Telegraph Link

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 05:31 AM

Yup that works.

So much for "Rag, Telegraph links are too long for the Mudcat link maker"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 05:35 AM

The Link

This should be your "missing link" professor

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 05:47 AM

For future reference to anyone interested there is a finite limit on the number of words in the link maker so sometimes a link is not created correctly. It is easy to get round. Just create the link and, when you paste it into your message, add the words that have been left off, usually the tail end of the link, manually. Seemples :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 05:50 AM

The link was a simple cut and paste Dave. No problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 06:04 AM

So it seems May intends to call on Labour to work with the Tories on policies they agree on and find a constructive way forward on the others.

Sounds unlikely to succeed but it would be interesting to hear our warring faction here make some proposals the other side will support.

The floor is open ...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 06:11 AM

At first glance this may seem to be a positive move, however it can also be construed as a sign of weakness or if things go pear-shaped a chance to shift the "blame" to other parties.

It should be interesting to follow this particular story.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 08:00 AM

As far as I am concerned that is the was governments should work. In some ways a minority or shared administration is better than one that can railroad everything through by sheer force of numbers. Compromise and mutual agreement is something that could help stem the flow of the more extreme policies on all sides. Maybe here as well although I would hold out less hope of getting a compromise from some on here than from either May or Corbyn :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 08:35 AM

I suggested this weeks ago, we are leaving the EU and it is important that unity is shown in obtaining the best possible terms.

The main sticking point is "Free movement", everything hinges on that, a red line for the EU....they cannot allow associate membership or any other get out unless we accept "Free movement" and we have realised that our infrastructure and public services simply will not stand the additional numbers arriving here.
We have also begun to realise the societal problems involved in a mass influx of other cultures and religions with the associated terrorist implication.

Mr Corbyn has always been anti EU and if he is indeed a statesman, he will use his present popularity amongst the young to make these negotiations end positively for Britain.
He could ditch his principles for short term political gain, but I think that would prove counter productive for himself and the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 08:49 AM

"The overall student debt is around £75 billion. It's a meaningless number as most student debt will not be paid off. "

If that is the case, why are we wasting the money in trying to educate these people? Why is the debt not being paid? Are there simply not enough highly paid jobs to go round? Are they too stupid to pass the exams? Are the courses not designed for the work available? Are too many dropping out early?

We need to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 10:16 AM

Hmmm, well of course it is easy to work together if one side gives in entirely which a little how that reads, ake.

But that isn't the challenge: It is to find things you agree on. So it is possible? Can ake or Teribus make a Brexit proposal - not for everything but one small corner - that they genuinely think Steve Shaw and Dave G could support? And vice versa?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 10:33 AM

Ake. One view of student debt:

Some may never repay it

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 10:54 AM

I am pretty amenable when it come to compromise. I have no idea if the others mentioned are but on the basis that we are all the same under the skin I don't see why everyone cannot come to some agreement. We have one commonality at least - We all like folk music!

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 10:59 AM

Hate to disillusion you Dave but I know people who only like traditional folk music, sung by men in white woolly jumpers, who have their finger stuffed in an aural orifice. Conversely I also know people who detest that sort of format.

I somehow doubt if we could all agree on folk music.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 12:13 PM

My apologies, O Dave of Gnomic fame and also to the other names I mentioned. The names were 'for illustrative purposes only' and were not intended to single you out specifically.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 12:30 PM

No apology needed! The biggest problem with internet forums is that you never really know the people you are talking to you. I never purposely hide anything from anyone but unless something like this crops up we don't think of giving out information. I guess we sort of assume that people do know us but that is often not the case.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 12:32 PM

We must work within "the possible" "D" and our options are limited due to the EU red line on FOM....I think we must be prepared to walk away and leave it to the remaining nations to put forward THEIR terms.
They cannot damage or blackmail us any further once we are out and today Australia has promised a huge trade deal after Brexit allied to Donal John's promise of good terms from America.
Mr Corbyn can raise his political stature and profile by putting the country first, and to be honest he really has no alternative.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 03:38 PM

"They cannot damage or blackmail us any further once we are out"

What !

Do you live in cloud cuckoo land ?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jul 17 - 02:36 AM

By what was said in the Commons yesterday, it appears that Mr Corbyn is more interested in making political capital than assisting in seeing through the Brexit negotiations to a satisfactory conclusion.

A bad move in the long term, a statesman would have taken the chance offered to prove himself. I also note his delivery has altered since the election to the hectoring manner that he once despised.

I really hope that he is not just another jumped up agitator.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jul 17 - 06:11 AM

Get real, akenaton. The EU's top priority is to hold itself together. It is not going to give an easy ride to a dissident country which has threatened the whole edifice by voting to leave. That applies both during the coming negotiations and after we leave. We will still be trading with the EU big-time.

If we ever leave. It's looking doubtful.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jul 17 - 01:28 PM

Labour MP Jess Phillips has criticised Left Wing abuse of Yvette Cooper, which she warned is part of a wider campaign to bully and intimidate female MPs.
Ms Phillips wrote on Twitter: 'This can no longer be seen as individual incidents, this is targeted to control isolate and manipulate.
'It has to stop.'

Corbyn promised a kinder and gentler politics, but there is no sign of that from his supporters.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Jul 17 - 02:35 PM

I see another conservative MP has blotted their copy book, using racist terms.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jul 17 - 03:46 PM

Yeah, so let's spend a year discussing the Tory party's "serious racism problem."

Kick it off, Keith. We know how you love balance.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Jul 17 - 04:10 PM

Thw view from the Independent

And I would also question how much of a punishment withdrawing the whip is. I suspect she will continue to follow any whip anyway so Mrs May is unlikely to be too worried about it eating the majority and as no timescale has been given she can be welcomed back into the fols whenever suits.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jul 17 - 05:29 PM

Plenty of grist to the mill in that Indie piece, Keith! Then there's Boris and his piccaninnies...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jul 17 - 05:37 PM

No good bringing that up lads. It's just a n****r the woodpile...

Whoops!

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jul 17 - 05:45 PM

Damned asterisks. The only place I've seen the word she used spelled in full was in the Guardian.

It was "nigger," by the way. 😉

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 03:06 AM

I was being uncharacteristically sensitive to save the delicate sensibilities of our right wing colleagues...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 05:20 AM

Anne-Marie Morris's use of the N word was deplorable, and the Party expressed its disgust at once.
Could it have been handled better?

Putting it in perspective, it was not said in a racist context, and it was just one person's gross stupidity.

The bullying I posted about is a much wider and more serious issue than a one off comment by one MP in an unguarded moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 06:33 AM

Putting it in perspective, it was not said in a racist context, and it was just one person's gross stupidity.

So, pretty much on par with Naz Shah's comments?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 06:46 AM

Oh, that's the sixth time a Tory has used that racist expression and we have only her word and the word of her fellow Tories that she's not a racist. Then there were those Tory sex parties for which underage boys were hired. I suppose there was no bullying there then! Then Andrew Mitchell with his plebgate... Keith, you're clutching at any straw once again. You'd have thought by now that you and your fellow Tories would have learned that people don't want to hear smears and negativity any more. The approach has just managed to lose May's majority for her. Cast out your Tory planks before you worry about Labour splinters. You need to change your obsession to telling us what your own tawdry side are going to do. So far, due to a multitude of Tory balls-ups and a distinct lack of vision, your side have left the country rudderless, at the mercy of a bunch of sectarian thugs and with brexit going down the pan. You have better things to do than to hang on to sore-loser Yvette's sour grapes.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 09:30 AM

Interesting correlation between the right wing press and racism in this article. Something that has been previously denied on here.

We need to make sure that Murdoch, at least, does not get his way and take over the whole media. Sign the petition.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 11:12 AM

Putting it in perspective, it was not said in a racist context, and it was just one person's gross stupidity.
So, pretty much on par with Naz Shah's comments?

No.
Her statements were anti-Semitic in context, advocating the transportation of the Jews out of Israel.
I am slightly shocked that you can not see that racism.

Morris in her stupidity used an expression once not considered racist here but now is because of the N word.

Steve,
Keith, you're clutching at any straw once again.

I am not and never have.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 11:15 AM

Just how far do you have to go back to find that using the "N" word was not considered racist, certainly before I was born over 60 years ago.

Clutching at straws just doesn't come in to it. Displaying your own racism certainly does.