BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 10:10 AM

"Your (deliberately) unlinked article came from that champion of democracy, The Daily Telegraph."

Not exactly true Jom. The Newspapers verbatim coverage of the Labour Leadership debate between Corbyn and Smith on BBC Two's Victoria Derbyshire Show.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 10:22 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37105028

A link to the BBC News article, people can make their own judgement on what it and the figures actually mean.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 10:26 AM

Well, Keith, as Teribus points out (quite rightly 😂😂😂), the big desertion has yet to be triggered and it'll be years before we are out. Crowing about a tiny shift in the numbers at this stage is premature in the extreme.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 10:59 AM

"The Newspapers verbatim coverage of the Labour Leadership debate between Corbyn and Smith on BBC Two's Victoria Derbyshire Show."
The quote is about being afraid if given as being from Ashton.
Immaterial anyway - it is unqualified and as such - unreliable.
You pair are still thrashing around trying to proce something for which theer is no tangible evidence - and no logic in a party dedicated to opposing antisemitism and fighting for women's rights.
You want to prove either - produce examples and figures - otherwise, it is fairly obvious that both claims are related to anti-Boycott propaganda and a dirty leadership fight.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 11:46 AM

And anonymous and untraceable tweets, which could have come from anyone, with any motivation, don't add up to any kind of evidence against Corbyn or those who share his views. (Except that those who send them clearly do not share Corbyn's views on sexism, racism, anti-semitism or abusing others.)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 12:33 PM

And anonymous and untraceable tweets, which could have come from anyone, with any motivation, don't add up to any kind of evidence

And here I thought "Social Media" (Farcebook, Twatter et. al.) was going to save the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 12:54 PM

McGrath of Harlow - 17 Aug 16 - 09:24 AM

"Teribus's comments about things not being so bad are a bit like the man who jumped from a skyscraper who was heard to say "all right so far" as he passed the thirteenth floor..."

Not really Kevin and besides even if that were true, you could never accuse the man of being a liar.

I think that when it does come down to negotiation neither side is going to cut their nose off to spite their face.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 01:48 PM

And here I thought "Social Media" (Farcebook, Twatter et. al.) was going to save the world.

Don't forget Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 01:55 PM

I'd never call you a liar, any more than the man in question.

I'm hoping we don't cut off our nose to spite our face, and that free movement will indeed be preserved. But the chances aren't too great. I doubt very much if the EU will budge significantly on this issue.

There could be some kind of fudge which the British govenment will try to present as a negotiating triumph, the way there was with Cameron's "EU reforms". I'm sure the Sir Humphreys could cobble up something of that sort.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 02:00 PM

I presume your last paragraph, Teribus, is about Brexit - which is not the subject of this thread - rather than Labour, which is.

If it did refer to Labour, it seems to me both camps have got the point that they ARE prepared to cut off their own noses. Unfortunately both sides are passionately convinced they are right - the Blairite are not simply opportunists, they believe wholeheartedly their way is the only way to save the party. So even if/when Corbyn wins again, I have little doubt the battles will carry on as now for a long time. And then resurface in force after the next election.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 02:39 PM

Don't forget Mudcat.

OK if I forget YOU, Bubo?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 02:44 PM

If the position of the opponents of Corbyn is that they don't disagree with the policies he stands for, but that it's just a question of them not having confidence in him, that's not a real problem. If the mass of the Labour party demonstrates that it does have confidence in him, the MPs just need to have the good sense, good manners and personal humility to accept that judgement.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 04:43 PM

I love you too Greg.......kiss, kiss!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 07:18 PM

McGrath of Harlow - 17 Aug 16 - 02:44 PM

Corbyn will undoubtedly win the leadership election, so none of Labour's problems will be resolved. Where in your reading of the situation are Labour voters views taken into consideration? They are the people who have lost confidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 08:42 PM

If the Labour Party electorate vote for Jeremy Corbyn, members of parliament should recognise that is the view of the party nationally, and in most cases at the level of their own constituency. (The overwhelming majority of constituencies have registered support for Jeremy, including most of those who supported other candidates in last years leadership election.) If they feel unable to accept the view of the party, they should resign from the party.

I believe in that situation they should act similarly to the two Tory MPs who defected to Ukip last year, and should resign from Parliament and seek re-election. This would provide a opportunity for the public to indicate their views on the matter.

If they choose to stay in Parliament as Labour members, they should obey the decision of the membership, and cooperate fully with Jeremy. If they are unwilling to do that they may weell be inviting reselection.

It's basically all about democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Aug 16 - 12:57 AM

The only problem with that answer of yours Kevin is that you are still only talking about members of the Labour Party - they number in the hundreds of thousands. To get elected into office the Labour Party needs to get the support of the voters who number in their millions (roughly 9.5 million) These are the people represented by the Parliamentary Labour Party. These are the people who have realised the fact that seems to have escaped the vast majority of those members of the Labour Party, particularly those who support Corbyn, you can spout on about and pay lip service to whatever guiding principles you like, you can pontificate in broad-brush terms ideology and policy - to translate those into anything you have to get elected into office, and the electorate knows, and the Parliamentary Labour Party knows that as long as Corbyn is leader that is never going to happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Aug 16 - 03:17 AM

"To get elected into office the Labour Party needs to get the support of the voters who number in their millions "
No they don't - does it say that in the rule book - utter nonsense?
What party is so democratic it has to win nationwide support to elect leaders?
None
That would require an ideal by-the-book Communist-based system to produce such a situation.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Aug 16 - 03:46 AM

"To get elected into office the Labour Party needs to get the support of the voters who number in their millions "
No they don't -

Yes they do (to get elected, silly).

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Aug 16 - 04:27 AM

Yes they do (to get elected, silly).
Of course you are right Keith - I misread (and I have no doubt that much will be made of my misreading!).
What I intended to say is that it is the duty of the Labour Party to serve the interest of the people as a whole rather than the privileged and better off few - it is a grass-roots party created by working people to address an imbalance in society.
The nearest it ever came to doing that was in the 1940s when it adopted measures designed to create a genuine "home fit for heroes to live in".
That was fiercely opposed and eventually dismantled by the Tories and the ideal was abandoned by self-servers who saw politics as a career rather than a way to achieve a better world.
Holding office has become more important than bringing about real change.
The Tories have never pretended to do more than represent the wealthy and privileged - the best of them adopted a benign superiority in the belief that the rest of the population might survive from the crumbs of the right-mans table - this present pack of savages regards the less well-off as a hindrance, and a drag on their objectives - work and war fodder lazy benefit scroungers - little else.
It makes little difference to the people of Britain if Labour is elected with the same objectives.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Aug 16 - 07:01 AM

No I didn't ignore the existence of the voters. It's their decision when it comes to voting. But the decision about the leadership of the Labour party, as a way of determining the overall policies of the party, rests with the membership together with members of affiliated unions and registered supporters.

Basically it's a matter of saying "this is what we are, and this is what we believe, and this is why we think you should support us".

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Aug 16 - 08:14 PM

And it's the last bit that's the uphill struggle. Blair and company did it via masterly spin. They had Murdoch on their side too. Tactics were everything, substance mostly nothing. All helped by the Tories proving how adept they were at choosing useless leaders. But the current Labour leadership have none of that. Loose cannons who say unwise things are gleefully pounced on and their issues become issues for months. There is a lack of discipline in some quarters which I'll freely admit to. Worst of all, the two-time losers in Labour who effectively imposed Cameron on us for two terms refuse to cooperate with a democratically-elected leader with a strong mandate. Labour have no mainstream media on their side, an understatement to dwarf all others. It's all a bit of a bugger but Kevin's last sentence is spot on. And read it again. Despite the darkly nonsensical Keithisms and Teribusisms we read here about Labour's cancers and near-terrorist qualities, there is a good dash of honesty coming to the fore. Let's hope it lasts. If it doesn't, and Owen Smith beats the odds, not only will it all evaporate in a spiralling whirl back to New Labour, the most spent of all spent forces, but we will STILL not get another Labour government next time, nor probably the time after that.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 02:43 AM

Teribus and Keith are correct in my opinion.....It will take many years for socialism to replace the system of financial aspiration which rules our lives at the moment, but there is simply no alternative in the long term .....our wasteful use of resources and labour cannot carry on forever, and at least in Mr Corbyn we have the chance to hear a real alternative to the capitalist narrative.

The young folks who's lives have been curtailed by the process may be more amenable to change than the spoiled generations which went before them when all the ingredients required to make capitalism work were available.

Turning Labour back into something like Blair's New Labour, means no change and a futher move towards the corrupt US form of government.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 04:19 AM

"Teribus and Keith are correct in my opinion.....It will take many years for socialism to replace the system of financial aspiration which rules our lives at the moment"
Theyu have never been "correct" anbout anything -0 though they are certainly RIGHT
Neither are the slightest bit interested in Socialism or have the slightest idea what it is (nor are you, in my opinion)
This is not a discussion on socialism - it is about how to make the best of what we have got with today's Labour Party and assist it to help clear up the present mess caused by the crownd in control - and **** Brexit
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 08:03 AM

"This is not a discussion on socialism - it is about how to make the best of what we have got with today's Labour Party"

You are Sooo right Jim!! (irony alert)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 08:08 AM

How would YOU know?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 08:11 AM

Wow! I wish I could have thought of a response like that! :0(

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 08:33 AM

"You are Sooo right Jim!!"
Don't get your point on irony at all, I'm afraid
It is incredibly patronising and arrogant to pronounce what the British people will and will not accept, as you have done on several occasions.
They/we took to the socialist measures introduced in the post war years like ducks to water.
Nationalisation was fully accepted as a legitimate system until is was undermined by underinvestment and denigration by the Tories - didn't hear howls of protest from people being 'forced' to travel on publicly owned trains, or burn nationalised coal, or by British produced steel goods....
I don't remember any public outcry about having to live in Council-owned property rather than stay tenets of the Rachmanns of this world.
It took Thatcherism (the nearest Britain has ever come to a Fascist administration) to kill those off - and please dont tell me what support she had from the British people - so did Hitler - a little bit of propaganda goes a long way in this twisted world..
Despite intense media pressure, the miner's strike was supported by large numbers of the British people
The only reason we still have a public health service is because it would reduce the country to near-revolution is your lot tried to remove it.
It is not the people who will not accept socialism - it is people like you, who claim to speak on their behalf.
You claim to be a socialist, yet you dismiss one of the great and only social perks ordinary people have as "benefit dependency" - putting yourself in the category of your two right-wing friends who regard working people as natural scroungers who cannot be trusted not to abuse a basic right.
Socialist my arse!!   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 08:40 AM

"so did Hitler - "
Should read "from the German people" of course - it was only the establishment who offered Hitler any support in the form of appeasement.
The British people paid the consequences for that appeasement.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 12:08 PM

Jim, you misunderstand me. To be immersed in the "benefits culture" is bad for people.....As I keep saying to be happy and fulfilled people need a purpose.....why do you think so many immensely wealthy people are deeply unhappy.
Socialism provides people with a purpose all contributing what they can to the Common Weal, but it takes years, generations to break the hold of the main driver of capitalism......personal financial aspiration. When all the necessities of the system are in place, it is a tremendous driver but in Western developed countries it has become unsustainable......just look at todays young people, huge expectations, but no chance of fulfilling them...saddled with debt from higher education onwards....look at the urban underclass the horrific drug problems, all symptoms of society in decline.
Look at the entertainment industry some of the "reality" stuff they are putting out is simply exploitative pornography.

We need to give back some sense of right and wrong to our people and socialism fits the bill

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 02:16 PM

"To be immersed in the "benefits culture" is bad for people."
There is no such thing as being immersed by "the benefit culture".
Benefit is an entitlement paid for by workers - an insurance.
Those who use it do so as an entitlement - those who 'abuse it' do so in the same way the better off do by seeking legal loopholes to avoid paying tax.
Both may be reprehensible, but when placed against the other, who is the most - a worker who manipulates benefits in order to lift his family out of poverty, or someone who can afford to pay expensive lawyers in order to save many thousands in tax.
Jobseekers allowance at present in Britain stands thus:

Age                                 JSA weekly amount
18 to 24                          up to £57.90
25 or over                          up to £73.10
Couples (both aged over 18)         up to £114.85

Measure this against the amount taken from Britain by tax evasion.
BENEFIT FRAUD v TAX EVASION
You choose to castigate a worker who attempts to better the lot of his family while ignoring the rich who won't pay tax.
Says everything that needs to be said.
You want to stop benefit fraud - pay a living wage - the pittance handedout is hardly going to obtain too many second hmes otr holidays abroad!
Your arguments are those of the rightest of right Tories.
Or perhaps you would like to suggest an alternative?
I really don't know what you are ranting about with your Reality TV.
The British working man is not a revolutionary by heart - that was avoided by the success of The Empire in exploiting our colonials and keeping wages just above starvation level on the profits.
Improvements were hard fought for while we had a voice in Britain - now we haven't - take a look at the rapidly accelerating gap between the haves and the have nots.
There might become a breaking point where people will say "enough is enough", but not in my lifetime.
In the meantime - there is no reason on earth why wealth sharing measures might not be brought about by a socialist enough Government.
You choose to attack workers and their rights on every level - as benefit scroungers, as exploiters of the National Health Service....
You are arrogant enough to tell us what we will accept and what the won't, but you carefully avoid responding to the facts of what they have responded to in the past.
Establishing "Right and wrong" across the board is a revolutionary concept - but you are talking about just instilling it into working people.
Coupled with your intolerant attitude to asylum seekers, refugees immigrants and homosexuals, you (along with your chosen buddies) are the most extreme right-wing people I have ever encountered - disturbingly so.
If you are a Socialist/Communist - my jack's a kipper!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 02:55 PM

I really would like to know what solution you propose to your "benefit culture" Ake, or is that going to be another undisclosed secret of the right, along with where to house the army of franticly peddaling itinerant workers looking for jobs in places where there are no homes to rent?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 04:50 PM

For f's sake Jim, I'm not talking about "benefit fraud", in fact this system is based on fraud so why would I single out the poor?
I was talking about "benefits" as an alternative to work which contributes to the wellbeing of society.

This system is happy to keep people on derisory "benefits" rather than retrain them or bring back apprenticeships......that is where the pool of Eastern European workers come into the equation.
The Govt say that these people are better motivated than British workers, but the British workers would be just as motivated if their wages were worth three to four times their face value.
A large proportion of money earned here by immigrants from Eastern Europe (who are mostly young males) is sent back home where it is worth almost four times what it is worth here.
That is why the pitch is so slanted, capitalist economics pure and simple.

You have an extremely simplistic attitude to debate Mr T and Keith have very different views to me regarding politics and economics, but on most social issues I agree with them fully.
You must understand that socialism has little in common with the excesses of media inspired "liberalism"

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 05:08 PM

And it's about time that you understood that your views have nothing to do whatsoever with socialism. Call yourself something else.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 07:51 PM

"I'm not talking about "benefit fraud","
If you are not talking about fraud, what on earth is wrong with claiming your rightful due from a fund we have all paid into?
"an alternative to work which contributes to the wellbeing of society."
You mean like the community service sentences they hand out to criminals?
You would criminalise being unemployed - worse and worse.
What do you suggest - having the unemployed sweep the streets.
Lack of apprenticeships the fault of Eastern European workers - are you completely insane?
We have no apprenticeships because we no longer have industries - Thatcher and her acolytes made sure of that.
Far easier for you Ukip clowns to blame foreigners
What new apprenticeships are there to be created?
You really are a sewer-level racist.
Keith is a racist and "Mr T" (wasn't he a black actor who wore a lot of bling?) is an openly declared fascist
'You can tell the man who boozes by the company he chooses,
And the bleedin' pig got up and walked away"
As the song goes.
I thought the other two where bad - you are crudely inept
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Aug 16 - 03:23 AM

Sorry Jim, you don't seem to have any interest in what anyone says regarding this subject......you are simply being disingenuous.
I don't think it is beyond you to conduct a debate, but you prefer to throw words like "Racist" and "Fascist" around.

It's just boring.

Do you really think that everything the so called Left does is wonderful and everything conservative is evil?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Aug 16 - 04:00 AM

Just a final word Jim, I have worked in the construction industry all my life and know that there is a massive housing shortage.
The larger firms in our area very rarely take on apprentices....it's years since I actually saw one at work.
That is just one facet of the economy.....there are dozens of others.

As I said in another post, the playing field is on a cliff face, Young people in the UK simply cannot afford to live on the wages accepted by immigrants as the immigrants wages are worth three times more in Poland or Romania.

Do you remember the story I told you of the young Polish chap with a wife and two children in his own country, who had saved enough in five years to build a house in Poland?
He had achieved that while working on the MINIMUM wage...not the LIVING wage.    How many of our young people would find that possible?

Unregulated immigration was a short term economic policy which has damaged society gravely.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Aug 16 - 05:40 AM

It is not immigrants who determine the low wages they are paid. It is employers. British ones. We call it capitalism. You have chosen the wrong enemy, as you always do.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Aug 16 - 07:50 AM

"Sorry Jim, you don't seem to have any interest in what anyone says regarding this subject"
Yes I have - I'm not particularly interested in your blaming immigrants and "benefit dependency" for the ills of society - that's the old Tory line and it's worn a bit thin down the decades
If you have an argument - put it and don''t accuse me of refusing to understand an argument you have not put.
I asked you to qualify your "benefit dependency" crap - what do you offer as an alternative to unemployment - forcing people to take menial jobs and lower wages with which they can't feed their families - that seems to be your argument.
If it isn't exactly what do you propose to end "benefit dependency?
You - like the other twerp with his "get on your bike" philosophy refuse to talk your extremist proposals through to their practical conclusion.   
"I have worked in the construction industry all my life and know that there is a massive housing shortage."
I damn well know that - I've probably worked in the building industry every bit as long as you - what the hell has that got to do with immigrants?
There are, in fact, probably sufficient houses in Britain to house everybody, when you count those that are left empty because it is more profitable for the owners to leave them so rather than modernise them - the North of England has always been full of them.
Your Mrs Thatcher created a situation where property ceased being homes and became investments.
The answer to lower wages is not to drive out people who accept them, but to establish a legal minimum wage based on peoples' requirements to feed and clothe themselves and their families.
You are blaming the workers instead of putting the onus on the employers and the government.
This is an age-old argument that goes back at least as far as the middle of the 19th century when hordes of starving Irish, fleeing from The Famine, were exploited by coalowners and millowners, who used their plight to drive down indigenous wages.
Then, the workers blamed the starving Irish - now, you people are blaming immigrants.
We exploited the world for many centuries, and to a degree, still are, by flooding our shops with goods made by workers working in appalling conditions and being paid little more than slave-level wages.
Add to this, the oppressive regimes imposing these conditions are Britain's allies - we support them, we arm them and we keep them in place because it suits our economy and our politics - oil being a priome example.
You are the first on your reactionary soap-box to sneer at efforts of the people in these countries when they try to improve their lot.
What do you expect these people to do - accept their lot in silence as long as they stay away from our little England???
These people are welcome to Britain - they come and add to our culture and to our economy - by and large, their communities are trouble-free other than when your friends in the BNP make their Paki-bashing sorties, or start pointing their fingers about "cultural implants" and "inferior brains (that last from none less than our Foreign Secretary
You are one of those weird people who has said "charity begins at home" - not in my world, it doesn't
Charity begins where it is most needed.
I've asked this before of others and never received an answer - lets try you.
Given the situation the people of Britain found themselves in in wartime Britain, do you think it would have been acceptable to refuse to take the Jews fleeing from Nazi Europe - if the answer is no, how do you justify your attitude to those fleeing the wars we have helped start that are taking place in countries like Syria - whence the difference.
There were tears in this house over the last few days when we saw the photograph of the little Allepo lad, just as there were when we saw the body of that drowned refugee being lifted out of the sea a few months ago - how did you and yours react - "serve them right for coming here" maybe?
You people are devoid of common sense and common decency
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Aug 16 - 09:45 AM

Economic migration depends on the real value of the currency being out of balance.....do you see British
labourers builders etc heading for Poland or Romania en masse?
As I said already these people are mainly young males, here for a short period around 5 years; most of them are roughing it and saving as much as they possibly can........I don't blame them they have a duty to their families, but our government's first duty in to the long term welfare of the people who elected them.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Aug 16 - 10:03 AM

Why this sudden obsession with young Polish men - have they turned you down too along with Hilary?
You carefully avoid commenting on the plight of the refugees thought they have been the permanent target of your attacks - how dishonest of you
You also refrain from offering your solution to "Benefit Culture" how dishonest of you.
Your arguments are dishonest and totally lack humanity in any shape or form.
Brexit was passed on the basis of stopping emigration - you supported that cause and refuse to justify that support.
You are not debating - you are using this thread as a platform for your bigotry
I think my point is made.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Aug 16 - 10:57 AM

In this part of the country Jim, economic migration is almost exclusively from Poland and Romania, I accept that in other areas the nationalities involved may be different.....but that doesn't make a whit of difference to my argument against mass immigration as an economic driver.

I notice that you have fail to address even one of the points I have made......What about the lack of workers to service the Polish infrastructure?
What about the lack of training for our young people?

Do you believe the parasitical use of immigrants to service our economy is moral, or even sensible?

You just haven't a clue when it comes down to realities.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Aug 16 - 11:28 AM

"In this part of the country Jim, economic migration is almost exclusively from Poland and Romania,"
So - keep your parochial bigotry to yourself
"I notice that you have fail to address even one of the points I have made.."
You have yet to begin yo address any of mine - how dishonest of you.
Im my world, workers are not appendages of the State, to be moved or left standing like chess-pieces.
They are free to work where they choose and not be moved or rooted at the behest of Government.
Are you seriously promoting a world where workers are forbidden this choice?
In 2013, 158088 British workers chose to work in Europe; in 2014m there were a total of 5.5 million Britons living and working abroad, that's around 7-8% of the UK population.
Is that the parasitical use of British immigrants?
No matter how they are used by employers, they choose to live and work where they do.
You are not going to respond to any of this - your crocodile tears about "parasitical use" is bullshit, and we both know it.
All you and yours are concerned about is getting rid of these foreign johnnies.
You haven't a shred of honesty or humanity - your world is one of workers as pawns of the State, and we know what that it!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Aug 16 - 11:51 AM

"In 2013, 158088 British workers chose to work in Europe"

Just one question Jim, how many of that 158088 are working for wages which cannot sustain citizens of these foreign countries?

Are the wages they receive worth three to four times back in Britain than in the foreign countries?

Don't think so Jim, the sloping playing field only slopes one way
No unskilled British labourer wants to go to Eastern Europe as an economic migrant......that's a bit like joining the circular firing squad......no?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Aug 16 - 12:17 PM

"Just one question Jim, how many of that 158088 are working for wages which cannot sustain citizens of these foreign countries"
No idea Ake - do you?
And what exactly does that mean
Britons are working in some of the richest and the most impoverished countries.
I have no doubt that they haven't bothered to find out if they are taking local jobs
"Are the wages they receive worth three to four times back in Britain than in the foreign countries?"
So you object to people who come here because they desperately need to - how human of you.
Admit it Ake - you don't give a toss about jobs for Brits - you would have them sweeping the streets for half nothing if you had your way
Your objection is that they are foreign
It's mnot that long ago you were ranting about them affecting our way of life - just like the little bigot you are,
"No unskilled British labourer wants to go to Eastern Europe as an economic migrant."
Of course they do - what a stupid thing to claim
They based a long-running TV series on it not so long ago
There were 33,000 Brits claiming dole in Europe alone in 20,15
"Don't think so Jim, the sloping playing field only slopes one way"
How the **** do you know - you had no idea of these figures up to half an hour ago - now, all of a suddenn, you are an expert on immigration
You are making this up to suit your bigotry.
Incredible!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Aug 16 - 12:42 PM

I'm getting bored with this Jim, you are blethering.

I have a dog running at Harlow tonight, so I'm off to study form.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Aug 16 - 02:57 PM

"I'm getting bored with this Jim, you are blethering."
Still the brave, honest up from character you always where
You have not answered one of my points and in the true tradition of the Terrible Trio - now you do a runner
No matter - you made clear what you are, which was the object of the exercise.
I hope you treat your dog better than you treat human beings!
Ewan put it quire appositely, I thought
Have a good night now!!
Jim Carroll

NATION OF ANIMAL LOVERS
We don't pretend we're perfect but we have endearing features,
We're honest and we're always kind to God's four-footed creatures;
Dogs and horses, hamsters, rabbits, little furry things -
Lousy Europeans can't appreciate the pleasure that a little kindness brings.
We're a nation of animal lovers.

When Greeks were being tortured then we always held our peace,
We used to like to spend our summer holidays in Greece;
Cats and ponies, budgies, moths and hairy caterpillars -
Lousy Europeans can't appreciate the pleasure that these little creatures give us,
We're a nation of animal lovers.

When there's hangings in South Africa we just avert our gaze,
But we're tender-hearted to a fault with alley cats and strays;
Remember how the nation nearly had a nervous spasm,
Breathlessly anticipating giant panda's pleasure in a cuddly orgasm,
We're a nation of animal lovers.

When there's rioting in Brixton we're impressively impassive,
But be cruel to a horse and our reaction then is massive;
Guinea pigs and painted terrapin, tropical fishes -
¤ Lesser races cannot understand the simple fact that it would meet with all our wishes
If there were no human beings.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Aug 16 - 06:55 PM

Mind, in my experience it's among animal lovers you tend to find some of the strongest advocates of human rights.
...................
"No unskilled British labourer wants to go to Eastern Europe as an economic migrant."
Of course they do - what a stupid thing to claim
They based a long-running TV series on it not so long ago

I take it you mean Auf Wiedersehen Pet - but pedantically I point out that Dusseldorf in Westphalia where it was set doesn't really count as Eastern Europe. And the building workers involved were not unskilled, but highly skilled, though unable to find work at home. Which is of course also true of most of those who've come here from Poland and other places.

Build the social housing we need, and there'd be plenty of work for skilled builders from home or abroad.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Aug 16 - 08:08 AM

The whole problem is systemic Mr McGrath, houses are looked upon as financial assets and that is what drives most housing "booms".

To find and spend the money required to provide social housing there would have to be a different ideology ...a different driver.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Aug 16 - 01:24 PM

I think they were called council houses, the sort of house I was brought up in.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Aug 16 - 02:22 PM

Well, I am pretty conflicted because I think it will turn out badly either way, but I've just voted for Corbyn. I can't say I am impressed with his ability to learn how to handle the press and think the PLP will continue to be as bad as ever, but I don't see Owen implementing the sort of changes required.