BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 04:49 AM

Your arguments are racist Keith - they always have been, with your obscene "implants"
One thing is certain - it the British people had adopted the attitudethat you people do, back in the thirties rather than the humanitarian Christian one they did, there would have bee millions more dead Jews than there were.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but I'm sure your God will forgive you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 05:36 AM

Jim Carroll - 06 Oct 16 - 04:13 AM

Usual over emotive response and generalisations from the above poster.

I wonder does he actually mean to challenge the evidence put before the Crown Court in the case of the Chinese Cockle pickers?

Is he actually attempting to deny the existence of Agencies set up in Eastern European EU member states who engage workers on what are in their own countries perfectly legal contracts, then send those workers to Britain using the EU's free movement of labour as the vehicle by which those agencies then exploit those workers. In doing this no EU Law is being violated and EU Law supersedes UK Law.

My previous post on this doesn't cover the half of it. The legally binding contract signed back in the labourer's home country requires that:

Contracted labour has to stay in Agency provided accommodation and money is deducted from their wages to cover those costs.
Contracted labour have to surrender their Passports.

In other words they are trapped for the term of their contracts. Now so far in all of this not a single "Brit" has been involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 05:56 AM

Unethical contracts can be found worldwide.

Perhaps you would care to take a look at Primark for example, and before you tell me that Primark is an Irish company you may want to know it is part of Associated British Foods which in itself is part of the FTSE 100.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 06:16 AM

"I wonder does he actually mean to challenge the evidence put before the Crown Court in the case of the Chinese Cockle pickers?"
Of course I don't, but singling out on group of foreigners as evidence of corrupt foreign employers and ignoring all the appallingly bad indigenous employers, especially those who use immigrants to drive down wages, is simple racism of the king which promotes race hatred, even violence.
The system we live under promotes and encourages exploitation - that some immigrant employers indulge in the free-for-all has s.f.a. to do with anything - especially whether Britain takes in too many immigrants.
Your instigation of race hatred includes those countries that have fair labour laws and infinitely better labour relations than Britain.
Choosing a bad example, sich as the cockle-pickers is crude tub-thumping racism.
Historically, right up to the end of Empire (within my lifetime), Britain treated the people they had dominion over like shit and were noted for doing so.
It's the system that allows abuses to happen that is at fault, not the nationality of those who take advantage of those faults.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 06:37 AM

Sub-contracting and outsourcing can be used to distance companies from the people who do work for them in a way that protects bad practice and exploitation. That's a mahor reason why it has probably increased in recent years as a way for exployers to avoid regulation that is meant to protect workers and quality. It's a way of avoiding responsibility. And as the court case Teribus quotes demonstrates, it is a pretty successful way of doing that.

It happens in all kinds of areas - local councils do it. When you complain about some faulty bit of work repairing council property the council says it's down to the contractor, the contractor says it's the subcontractor, the subcontractor says it's the council...

It's a serious problem, and too often gets ignored. But most of the time those engaged in this, at the top especially, are natives.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 07:48 AM

"The system we live under promotes and encourages exploitation"

Well for the last 43 years that's been successively - "the Common Market"; The EEC; the EU.

The type of contracts I referred to would be illegal in the UK, but as the contracts are signed abroad, we have no control over them and if they are legal in the country they are signed in they are enforceable. It is then EU employment laws and the rules governing free movement of labour that provides the loophole for this exploitation. EU could of course make it law that the employment law to be adhered to must be that of the country where the work will actually take place - but that has it's downsides to.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 08:02 AM

Remember the Chinese "Cockle pickers" in Morecombe Bay? Their "employer" was a Triad Gang....

Yup! See, I was right at 05 Oct 16 - 04:34 PM! Just like Trump's Mexican rapists, murders, pederasts & the like.

Be afraid, be very afraid!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 08:20 AM

Those are the kinds of reforms which were needed in the EU, but they weren't the kind of stuff Cameron was trying for. And I'll be very surprised if after Brexit those kind of loopholes are not preserved.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 08:26 AM

"The type of contracts I referred to would be illegal in the UK,"
Plenty of those by indigenous employers - an essential part of "the black economy"
As I said, concentrating on only foreign ones is racist.
"the Common Market"
Exploitation of workers by employing cheaper labour predates the E.U. by centuries
19th century mine and and mill owners were having a field day exploiting the starving Irish fleeing the Famine, with the Government happily supporting them by opposing the introduction of Trade Unionism.
The inter-communal racism that came out of that is an accepted fact.
You fellers are still happy to use the same techniques against immigrants today - why abandon something that's served to prop up an exploitative system when it's done its job so well for so long.
The real alternative is to set a minimum living wage - can't let that happen, can we!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 08:32 AM

Whether it's called a minimum wage or a living wage (should mean the same thing) setting it is only part of the story. It needs to be enforced and monitored. Best way to monitor it is probably an effective trade union system.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 08:36 AM

At least, we won't be a party to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 08:39 AM

The huge differentials in exchange rate makes a mockery of the whole ill gotten scheme.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 08:58 AM

If it was impossible to pay a wage for a nasty job that wasn't sufficient to attract locals, there wouldn't be any particular incentive to employ immigrants, even if they would be willing to work for less. Unless they were better at the job, and that's a matter for our education and training system to address.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 09:53 AM

"At least, we won't be a party to them."
No minimum wage - no living wage - no Trades Unions - you really are a bosses man aren't you Ake?
Maybe after the recent Ukip kerfuffle, you should think about applying for the bosses job - you certainly seem to meet all the necessary requirements
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 10:59 AM

" an effective trade union system."

You mean one like exists in Germany Kevin - i.e. one that does the job it was intended to do, one that behaves in a responsible manner with regard to the companies and industries it's members are employed in, one that does not meddle in politics and attempt to dictate to the elected Government?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 11:24 AM

"one that does not meddle in politics and attempt to dictate to the elected Government?"
Tory bullshit.
It was the politicians who meddled in Trades union rights, not the other way round
Thatcher the fascist deliberately confronted the miners to DESTROY the Trades Union movement.
The Unions in general never attempted to interfere in Government, any conflict that arose dd so because of attempted government interference.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 12:17 PM

It's quite simple really Jim, I am in favour of changing the economic system over a reasonable measure of time.
You on the other hand are in favour of keeping the democratic capitalist system we have at present, but making bloody sure it cannot work effectively. A "no win" situation.

If capitalism is not allowed to create wealth it moves on to somewhere more conducive.....I have sad many times that if we are determined to have a capitalist society and economy, the Conservative Party are the most effective people to run it.
That has always been true in my lifetime Labour borrow and spend without demanding any sacrifices from the working and middle classes. Soaking the rich stops the capitalist system from working effectively, as "the rich" are often the wealth creators.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 12:39 PM

"German workers are also envied for their corporate power. Their influence within larger companies is guaranteed by their seats on supervisory boards; this gives them a say in the hiring and firing of management and decisions over company strategy. Such a system is lauded by Ed Miliband, who is infatuated with the Rhineland model of consensual capitalism."
"It's quite simple really Jim, I am in favour of changing the economic system over a reasonable measure of time."
When's a "reasonable time" Ake - when we're all dead presumably - or perhaps when YOU decide?
We have lost our bargaining position as workers down the years, we no longer have security of employment at work or security of tenure at home, as a result, unemployment and homelessness are soaring.
According to last years's survey, following the last recession, the rich are 64% richer and the poor are 57% poorer
We no longer have an industrial base because it does not benefit the investors to have one - more profitable to swell the dole queues and buy foreign
I asked you for your idea as to how change could be brought about - you never answered, nor will you now.
You have no interest in changing society for the better and have aligned yourself with those who prefer to attack the less fortunate, in this case, refugees and economic migrants rather than to support just change
I really hop you choke on your "Pie in the Sky".
Wealth created by Captalism is only beneficial when it benefits all - the fact that Britain's main export is money says what needs to be said about exactly how "beneficial" it is to the working people of Britain as a whole
You are an establishment arse-kisser in the extreme.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 12:52 PM

Why are you on the Left always so nasty and always trying to make it personal.
Why can we never have a respectful, civilised discussion without name calling?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 01:05 PM

Don't generalise, Keith. Those accusations definitely don't reflect how Jeremy Corbyn responds to criticism, and repeatedly urges others to do. And when did you last catch me overstepping the mark?
............
The big difference with German Trades Unions is that they are allowed to get on with the job without being stomped by the government with legislation that aims to undermine their ability to do that. And it would be recognised as a breach of the constitution for any govvernment to try to do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 01:31 PM

You call those who don't agree with you know nothings, muppets and ignoramuses - "antisemitism has been one of your accusations and you constantly accuse me of lying and making things up
Yo never withdraw you accusations, let alone apologise for them when you are proven wrong
Glass houses and all that Keith
I am responding to what Ake said - nothing is out of context here
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 02:07 PM

McGrath,
Don't generalise, Keith. Those accusations definitely don't reflect how Jeremy Corbyn responds to criticism, and repeatedly urges others to do. And when did you last catch me overstepping the mark?

Never Kevin. Sorry. I should have made clear that I meant Steve and Jim who have both just attacked me and others personally instead of discussing.
I am sure you disdain such behaviour as much as I do.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BBC 5 months ago,
"The leader of Labour's inquiry into anti-Semitism, Shami Chakrabarti, says she has joined the party in order to gain members' "trust and confidence".

Now, having been a member only five months, she has been made Shadow Attorney General!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 02:13 PM

Jim,
you know nothings, muppets and ignoramuses - "antisemitism has been one of your accusations and you constantly accuse me of lying and making things up

Muppets is an affectionate term. I call my grandchildren muppets in fun sometimes.

Can you give an example of me accusing you of making things up when you had not?
No, but feel free to prove me wrong.

I have never called anyone an ignoramus, or accused anyone of antisemitism.
Lots of made up stuff there Jim!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 02:15 PM

But she's got a very impressive amount of experience.

When you sign a top-flight player you don't keep them on the substitutes bench till the next season.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 02:57 PM

Big difference between German Trades Unions Kevin is that they are forbidden by law from calling "Wildcat Strikes", they have never attempted to hold the Government or the country to ransom to get what they want, no such thing as "flying pickets", again illegal, and they and the employers are subject to compulsory and binding third party arbitration once a dispute has run a defined length of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 03:16 PM

British Trades Unions are also forbidden to call Wilcat Strikes. And in fact Wildcat Strikes is properly the term for what happens when a bunch of workers down tools without being authorised to do so by their union.

And so forth. British Trades Unions have all the restrictions German ones do, and then some, but without the rights which German unions have by law to balance things up.
The arrangements in Germany are essentially the ones designed by representatives of British Trades Unions after the war.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 03:18 PM

"Muppets is an affectionate term. "
A spectacular example of your dishonesty, which you've used before
You have used it as a term of abuse, along with all the others I have listed and you have chosen to ignore - the fact that you choose this and ignore the rest is another example of your dishonesty - I doubt very much if you are going to admit to them, let alone withdraw or apologise for them - the fact that yyou are silent on them is the narest we are likely to get to an apology.
"Can you give an example of me accusing you of making things up when you had not?"
Where to start
David Ben Gurion's ''taken their land' statement, "Benny Morris's' admitting to burying the massacre victim, 'Self-Hating Jews'..... are the ones that spring to mind.
I've said this before - I do not "make up" anything and if I ever felt the need to I would not be part of these debates.
Unlike you, I and those I respect on this forum are here to debate and exchange ideas, not to "win" anything.
"Ignoramous" or o nothing is also another of your stock phrases.
"Why are you on the Left always so nasty and always trying to make it personal."
Your hypocrisy here is stunning
One ofe the most "personal" and "nasty" individuals on this forum is your friend Bobad, certainly not of "the left", - he is one of yours - his distastefully cowardly name-calling and his refusal to even pretend to respond, (as you do) put any bad-tempered response I make make in the shade
Far from complaining, you back up his vituperative hate-filled vomit - you have never once complained about his behaviour - it seems things are only "nasty and personal" when they are aimed at you or your friends.   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 03:42 PM

Maybe a separate thread about netiquette and about how best to conduct discussions about subjects that arouse heated feelings might be a good idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 05:53 PM

Why are you on the Left always so nasty and always trying to make it personal.

Please don't sully the respectable progressive Left by referring to these regressive Leftists as the Left. This species of nouveau fascists are not representative of the Left, they are exemplars of the far Left and have more in common with the far Right than with the true Left.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 06:16 PM

I'm getting seriously pissed off with this. I asked the mods to close the toxic "Whither Labour" thread, appealed on this thread to keep it clean, and look what happens. We have the usual trolls, Keith and bobad, (not even suspects) showing up here in order to disrupt the discussion. I have things to say in this thread, but I honestly can't be arsed at the moment. I'm off to post about autumn leaves in more pleasant threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 06:38 PM

The thing is to avoid getting into direct arguments with individuals but rather to address the issues. And completely ignore any name-calling. That's the way Jeremy Corbyn operates, and that was also how Tony Benn did.
......
Last time anything to do with a politically related issue we were having some posts about comparisons between trades unions in Britain and Germany. Anybody out there with any actual experience that's relevant to that? One of the thing that worries Labour supporters is that this government might use Brexit as a way of hitting various kinds of workers rights, and the right to organise effectively is a central part of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 06:54 PM

That is true, but Corbyn and Benn are not in this forum and they are not being confronted by Keith A of Hertford and bobad. The other thread was closed, rightly, but these two have migrated here and as such I see little point in going on. They have injected the same poison into this thread as they did in the other one. Of course, we all know the answer. Unfortunately, the answer is not being achieved. Human nature I suppose. They can't debate, they are seriously and incurably bigoted, and I for one can't debate with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 07:07 PM

And completely ignore any name-calling

You're addressing this to Shaw? We can only dream of rising to the level of ad hominem of the master.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 07:57 PM

I rest my case.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 08:35 PM

I was addressing my comment to anyone thinking of posting. Including me. If the need to get stuck-in gets too strong, the thing to do is write the post. Then look at it and delete it. Maybe save it to look at later. I doubt very much if you'll find yourself saying "I really wish I had posted that."

Leave the fisticuffs to Ukip...
...
Interesting to see Theresa May simultaneously channelling Ed Milliband and Margaret Thatcher.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 09:26 PM

Interesting, innit, that the most shambolic political party in the nation, the one that got four million votes, the one whose leader is lauded by at least two or three posters here, is not only the one that plays leadership musical chairs/which manages to beat the shite out of each other/which has a bloke in charge of Wales who publicly hates the guts of its skinny-dipping leader and vice versa, but is also the one that dragged us out of the EU courtesy of a pack of lies. Nice one, brexit voters. You must be so happy that you're so well-led. Such profound and honest arguments from people of such integrity swayed you. Congratulations!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 09:54 PM

While those qualities are most openly shown in the case of Ukip, it has to be recognised that comparable levels of fractiousness characterise both the Conservative Party and particularly the Labour Party. There don't appear to be any reports of stand-up fights so far, but plenty of talk of stabs in the back (and indeed front).

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 03:18 AM

Seems to have been established that there was a fight, with the the name of a fellow - Kipper being mentioned as having done the dirty deed, the appropriately named Mike Hookem (you couldn't make it up).
Woolfe is said to have suffered a 'bleed on the brain', so for a Ukip member, not too serious then!
"Anybody out there with any actual experience that's relevant to that? "
I posted this above - but here 'tis again
""German workers are also envied for their corporate power. Their influence within larger companies is guaranteed by their seats on supervisory boards; this gives them a say in the hiring and firing of management and decisions over company strategy. Such a system is lauded by Ed Miliband, who is infatuated with the Rhineland model of consensual capitalism."

"Maybe a separate thread about netiquette"
Totally agree, though it was dealt with pretty well on the Trolls and Flames thread

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 03:39 AM

Yes isn't it strange when human nature rears it's ugly head, Mr Prescott's clunking fist comes to mind amongst various other examples of pugilism that have occurred in politics.

Mr Mcgrath is correct to emphasis the open hater within the Labour Party at present.

On forum behaviour, the two people making the most noise are almost always the authors of spittle flecked diatribes containing the usual charges of bigotry xenophobia and racism.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 03:47 AM

Whoops another prem. ejac.
Link to above MODEL FOR BRITAIN
As usual, Teribus gives us only half the story - the bit that suits him.
German Trades Unions are part of the decision making of the companies - they are the workers voice in decision making.
British workers have no such voice leaving them with no negotiation power other than the withdrawal of their labour - the end result being a SHARP DECREASE IN LIVING STANDARDS, zero contracts and a widening gap between haves and have-nots.
Whatever the shortcomings, German workers have a built-in say in their lives, we have not.
Workers do not go on strike without thinking hard first - they do so to maintain a living standard and improve bad conditions - the alternative is to do nothing and watch their working lives deteriorate.
I know from experience (twice in 50 years) that taking industial action is frightening and costly.
The two occasions I was involved were both to prevent the conditions I was employed under being worsened - to prevent apprentices being used as tea-boys and then to prevent tradesmen from being used as pack-mules when our employer halted the practice of transporting tools and heavy equipment to our work-sites.
Much thought and debate went into those decisions.
"Wildcat Strikes" is a term invented by the pro-Tory gutter press.   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 03:51 AM

Jim,
David Ben Gurion's ''taken their land' statement, "Benny Morris's' admitting to burying the massacre victim, 'Self-Hating Jews'..... are the ones that spring to mind

You accused me of making up the phrase, "Self-Hating Jews."
That was not true.

Neither of us has read Benny Morris' book, so you are relying on what propagandists have told you.
I should have a copy soon and am confident they lied.

You did completely misrepresent what Ben Gurion said, and "muppets" are amusing puppet characters popular with children, and in no way a term of abuse.

"Ignoramous" or o nothing is also another of your stock phrases.
Then why can't you find a single example? Because I have never used it.

I do not do abuse and name calling.
Why can't you and Steve stop?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 03:52 AM

Whoops another prem. ejac.
Link to above MODEL FOR BRITAIN
As usual, Teribus gives us only half the story - the bit that suits him.
German Trades Unions are part of the decision making of the companies - they are the workers voice in decision making.
British workers have no such voice leaving them with no negotiation power other than the withdrawal of their labour - the end result being a SHARP DECREASE IN LIVING STANDARDS, zero contracts and a widening gap between haves and have-nots.
Whatever the shortcomings, German workers have a built-in say in their lives, we have not.
Workers do not go on strike without thinking hard first - they do so to maintain a living standard and improve bad conditions - the alternative is to do nothing and watch their working lives deteriorate.
I know from experience (twice in 50 years) that taking industial action is frightening and costly.
The two occasions I was involved were both to prevent the conditions I was employed under being worsened - to prevent apprentices being used as tea-boys and then to prevent tradesmen from being used as pack-mules when our employer halted the practice of transporting tools and heavy equipment to our work-sites.
Much thought and debate went into those decisions.
"Wildcat Strikes" is a term invented by the pro-Tory gutter press.   
Jim Carroll
"spittle flecked diatribes"
Please leave it out Ake - especially when you appear to be handing out exactly the abuse you appear to be complaining of - the 'Grass Houses' syndrome again

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 03:57 AM

Strange...I always thought "wildcat strikes" were those which had not been authorised by the appropriate union?
But what do I know, Jim is the real socialist.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 04:09 AM

Just one of the latest offerings from Jim......to your taste?
Perhaps just one little fleck too many?

"So the immigrants are all potential criminals and the non British employees are all criminals or potential criminals?
***** foreigners eh!!
Has this site finally fallen into the hands of the B.N.P. - it certainly seems like it, reading the racist bile of our three caped crusaders.
The most law-abiding, industrious and ambitious section of the population are the million or so Asians who have moved to Britain to better their lot, more often often than not to be greeted by racist filth such as that being vomited here by our three resident 'Christian humanitarians'"

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 04:54 AM

While Nigel Farage was the man solely responsible for getting the notion of the UK leaving the EU firmly on the agenda. When it came to the run up to the actual referendum itself, neither he nor his Political Party formed any part of the "Official" Leave Campaign.

And just for the record it was 17,410,742 votes cast by the electorate of the United Kingdom that will take us out of the EU. The lies told that brought about that result, for many, were the lies told 43 years previously by Ted Heath in 1973 when he conned the British people into believing that we were becoming members of a "trading organisation", when he knew perfectly well it was not.

Back to Trades Union comparison:

McGrath of Harlow - 06 Oct 16 - 03:16 PM

You forgot to add in that post that what you were describing was the situation that has pertained post-Thatcher.

The German Trades Unions totally independent from all political parties that decision having been made by the people, whereas here in the UK we have UNITE Boss Len McCluskey boasting about how many Labour MPs "HIS" Union OWNS.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 05:34 AM

Well yes, Ted Heath lied. As we know, politicos of all persuasions lied in their teeth this time round too. Plus ça change, eh? But let's look at the confirmation referendum in 1975 (under Harold, not Ted). 17,378,581 votes to stay, fewer than half of that number to leave. You want us to accept the latest neck-and-neck result now, claiming that the "people have spoken" (less than 38% of registered electors, but hey ho) but you and your ilk never accepted that incredibly decisive result and have been briefing and organising against the EU/EC ever since. What was that about sauce for geese and ganders...?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 05:35 AM

"whereas here in the UK we have UNITE Boss Len McCluskey "
The employers federation is made up exclusively of Conservatives
How independent can you get?
The Labour party was created by the trades Union movement to represent workers interests
The problems have arisen when both of them were bought over and ceased to represent the people who created them
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 05:55 AM

"Just one of the latest offerings from Jim......to your taste?"
I've given my opinion of the racists on this forum among whom you feature and I've said why I believe you are what I think you are.
You want to dispute it by justifying your racism, feel free to do so, otherwise, stop trying to make this another on- to-one
You are doing exactly what you have accused others of doing
Pack it in unless you intend to deliberately wreck this thread
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 06:24 AM

Sorry should have added "You want to dispute it by justifying your racism, feel free to do so" BUT NOT HERE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 07:19 AM

Free vote insisted upon by Wilson in the 1975 first ever UK wide referendum, the constitutional precedent of abandoning collective cabinet responsibility. The referendum was only held because with the free vote in the House of Commons Wilson got it through because of Conservative votes. The vote by the electorate went the way it did was because of repetition of the same lies told in 1973 coupled with scare stories of "doom'n'gloom" that the country would be ruined if we left the EEC that was a lie then as it was a lie when similar predictions were made earlier this year in the run up to the 2016 Referendum.