BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jan 17 - 08:29 AM

Should have been 100 4x4's of course but it is no 100 4x4's plus a unicycle...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 17 - 09:12 AM

Well. let's look at what two states might look like, Teribus. One rich state with a powerful military next to a much poorer state with one of two conformations: either an Arab state consisting in effect of enclaves within Israel, or a larger Arab state containing Israeli enclaves consisting of the current settlements. The former is completely unacceptable to the Palestinians for obvious reasons. The latter, though under Palestinian sovereignty, would contain clusters of much wealthier non-Arab people who would almost certainly insist on continued separation and who would fuel resentment among the majority Arab population. Two states based on 1967 borders is just never going to happen because Israel never has to give back.

Do you really think you can blame the Palestinians for not having the appetite for either scenario? Or the ordinary Israeli people, for that matter? How can you possibly deny that current Israeli policy is doing anything other then making a two-state solution less and less viable? Obsessively blaming Palestinians for walking away from a two-state solution is just absurd. The Israeli regime want it even less than the Palestinians, otherwise they wouldn't be doing things that, plain as the nose on your face, militate against it.

We can go on as now for ever, enduring conflict after conflict. Or we will end up with a single state in which the demographic will develop in a way that Israel will see as threatening. Israel would have to choose between ditching democracy or ditching the Jewish state. It will come to that because Israel's short-sighted leaders are making anything else impossible. They are acting against the long-term interests of their own people. One fine day the people might actually wake up to it and see that trying to be good neighbours might be better all round.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jan 17 - 12:01 PM

Jim,
No conquering people ahs the right to depose those they have conquered.

Actually millions, mostly ethnic Germans, were displaced after WW2.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Jan 17 - 12:29 PM

True professor,many Germans were ejected, but as I am sure you were taught at school two wrongs don't make a right.

Or do they in your world?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jan 17 - 03:04 PM

"Actually millions, mostly ethnic Germans, were displaced after WW2."
Another stupid comparison which had nothing to do with a conquered people being driven out ot not being allowed to returned, as has happenef in Palestine
"The removals occurred in three overlapping phases, the first of which was the organized evacuation of ethnic Germans by the Nazi government in the face of the advancing Red Army, from mid-1944 to early 1945.[11] The second phase was the disorganised fleeing of ethnic Germans immediately following the Wehrmacht's defeat. The third phase was a more organised expulsion following the Allied leaders' Potsdam Agreement,[11] which redefined the Central European borders and approved expulsions of ethnic Germans from Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary.[12] Many German civilians were sent to internment and labour camps where they were used as forced labour as part of German reparations to countries in eastern Europe.[13] The major expulsions were complete in 1950.[11] Estimates for the total number of people of German ancestry still living in Central and Eastern Europe in 1950 range from 700,000 to 2.7 million."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 05:09 AM

Rag,
True professor,many Germans were ejected, but as I am sure you were taught at school two wrongs don't make a right.
Or do they in your world?

No Rag. I was just correcting an error of fact from Jim.
"So we shouldhave deposed the entire Geman nation in 1945
Don't be more stupid than you have already shown you are.
No conquering people ahs the right to depose those they have conquered."

Also, Israel was defending against conquest, not engaged in it.

Another stupid comparison which had nothing to do with a conquered people being driven out ot not being allowed to returned, as has happenef in Palestine

Yes. To Jews and Arabs.


"The Expulsion Of The Germans: The Largest Forced Migration In History"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rm-douglas/expulsion-germans-forced-migration_b_1625437.html

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 07:09 AM

So Shaw you think that due to the unacceptability of the Two State Solution to both sides the conflict will continue. The track record however is that the Jews of Palestine have always been prepared to accept such a solution the track record of the Arabs of Palestine is that they have never found such a compromise.

Your thumbnail sketch - "One rich state with a powerful military next to a much poorer state" - In other words the exact reversal of what the fledgling State of Israel faced in 1948, although their "much poorer state" faced numerous enemies not just one. Israel has advanced as a developed democratic state her former neighbours and enemies are firmly on the path to self-destructi
on.

So the conflict will go on - next time leave them to fight it out to the end.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 07:11 AM

"No Rag. I was just correcting an error of fact from Jim."
You've ben given the facts in full
No nation has ever deliberately refused re-entry or forced exile on the people of a conquered nation other than Israel.
That woud have been ethnic cleansing, which is what his happening to the Palestinians

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 07:16 AM

Well it didn't work then and it won't work now. Israel's security has long been predicated on the billions per annum in US military aid. And you are refusing to address the point that a two-state solution is not viable as long as settlement expansion continues. It isn't the Palestinians doing that, is it? Are we looking for solutions or are you just going to keep chanting your view of the history and shouting ya-boo?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 10:01 AM

a two-state solution is not viable as long as settlement expansion continues

"It is ludicrous to argue that the settlements are an "obstacle to peace," because they were not an obstacle to offering the Palestinians a state on three separate occasions: (a) in July 2000 at Camp David; (b) in the Clinton Parameters six months later; and (c) in the Olmert offer at the end of the one-year Annapolis Process in 2008. Each time, the Palestinians rejected a state on substantially all of the West Bank and Gaza with a capital in Jerusalem.

The real obstacle, as Michael Mandelbaum showed in his landmark essay in the May 2016 issue of COMMENTARY, "The Peace Process is an Obstacle to Peace," is the Palestinian refusal to accept a Jewish state within any boundaries, much less defensible borders. Until the Palestinians endorse "two states for two peoples"–something the Palestinians have not yet done–the process will be stuck on side issues such as settlements. Until the Palestinians declare that a Palestinian state is an end-of-claims solution, and not simply a step in further prosecuting a specious "right of return," the Palestinians have not even put peace on the table."

http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/its-not-the-settlements-stupid/2017/01/04/

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 10:25 AM

Putting peace on the table in an impasse means compromise. You can, of course, put peace on the table on entirely your own terms once you've annihilated your enemy. That will never happen. Tiny Israel can keep on grabbing the land and making two states more and more impossible because the might of the US will always be behind them. Either the region is doomed to eternal conflict or there will one day be one state containing, eventually, more Arabs than Jews. If the Jews still want to be in power, they will become totalitarian. That will last no more than several years as western allies evaporate. Israel's claim for western protection as the only "democracy" (sure...) in the region will have lost its validity. If democracy is the goal, then the Jewish state will be no more. The demographics in the region dictate that Israel's continuing presence as a Jewish state is highly artificial. One day there'll Jews and Arabs living together as equals. Sounds good to me.

A two-state solution based on the demands of either side would be extremely unstable. Nothing would be solved. The conflicts would go on and on.

One state will happen. It might take a hundred years. If it takes just ten, a lot of lives will be saved.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 10:45 AM

One day there'll Jews and Arabs living together as equals.

There is that today in Israel.

There will never exist a situation where Jews are a minority in their own country, especially not a minority to a majority whose goal is their annihilation - get used to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 10:56 AM

One state will happen. It might take a hundred years. If it takes just ten, a lot of lives will be saved.

What you are wishing for the Jews is what they had in Germany prior to World War II - sure were a lot of lives saved then, weren't there?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 12:45 PM

Give yourself a breather and stop posting such arrant nonsense. Even Bibi is more worried about the long-term demographics than you are. So am I. It is a recipe for long-term instability and it is going to have to be addressed, whatever current ideology is blinding you to the reality. Incidentally, there is no equality in Israel today. I've posted the details of that more than once before and they are undeniable. Arab citizens in Israel have far higher unemployment, far lower pay, worse career prospects, poorer housing, worse schools, much worse public transport and are subject to random and uncalled-for restriction on movement around the country. Go and look it up for yourself. I'm sick of dredging things up repeatedly to cater for people with cloth ears. I'm making a casserole and I'm busy.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 01:25 PM

Incidentally, there is no equality in Israel today.

"Is Israel inherently racist, an apartheid state? Well, do you think that such a country would tolerate a person like myself getting to the position I am today? Forget for a second (BDS supporters would like you to forget permanently!) that 20 percent of Israelis are non-Jewish, have full rights, and are represented throughout society. It's one thing, after all, to have Arab politicians, Christian voters, and Muslim doctors – although we do have them, and quite a few at that.

But a non-Jewish army Major? Someone who has not only fought alongside Jewish soldiers, but now trains them too? Would a truly racist state allow me to play such an integral role in our nation's defenses?"

Major Alaa Waheeb...... Israeli Arab, and the highest ranked Muslim in the IDF.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 01:44 PM

Arab citizens in Israel have far higher unemployment, far lower pay, worse career prospects, poorer housing, worse schools, much worse public transport and are subject to random and uncalled-for restriction on movement around the country.

If that is the case there could be many possible reasons for it. Equality of opportunity is not one though as Israel has a law that prohibits the employer from discriminating between job applicants or employees on the following criteria:

    Sex
    Sexual orientation
    Pregnancy
    Fertility treatment
    Parenting
    Age
    Race
    Religion
    Nationality
    Country of origin
    Residence
    Political view
    Reservist duty

Prohibition of discrimination applies to hiring, working conditions, promotion, professional training or studies, discharge or severance pay and benefits and payments provided for employees in connection with their retirement from employment. The law was enacted in 1988,[2] and replaced an earlier 1981 law.[3]

Wikipedia

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 02:00 PM

INEQUALITY REPORT
GENDER INEQUALITY
FINANCIAL INEQUALITY
DISCRIMINATORY LAWS
BEDOUINS
RELIGIOUS DIVISIONS
CHRISTIANS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 02:27 PM

One can troll the internet and find the same shit and worse about any country one wishes to demonize - meaningless.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 02:32 PM

"One can troll the internet and find the same shit and worse about any country one wishes to demonize - meaningless"
Even the Isareli press reports?
Don't you mean unanswerable?
That's your "equal" Israel Bobad
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 03:07 PM

IRELAND'S HUMAN RIGHTS RECORD: State looked the other way as citizens suffered
Human Rights Violations in Ireland
Exposing the Gaps in Ireland's Human Rights Record
The UN decided Ireland's abortion law is a violation of human rights
Holding Ireland to account for violations of basic human rights
Ireland will be grilled on its human rights record at the UN today - and it might not be pretty
Human rights violations in the Irish Education system
Migrants face discrimination and assault, report finds
The Experience of Discrimination in Ireland

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 03:13 PM

More Israeeli equality
EDUCATION
EQUALITY of TENURE
HUMILIATION at CHECKPOINTS
PERSUCUTION of PALESTINIAN CHILDREN
ABUSE of PALESTINIAN WOMEN
WOMEN and ELDERLY

ISRAELI SOLDIERS TESTIMONIES
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 03:19 PM

What on earth does Ireland do with any of this Bobad
I am not Irish, I don't support their politics nor their human rights record
I am an active opponent on their treatment of Travellers
Are you suggesting that because a poor record that it excuses Israel?
You were thew one who brought up thise "equality" bullshit - not me
Pathetic - even by your trollish standards
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 03:21 PM

One can troll the internet and find the same shit and worse about any country one wishes to demonize - meaningless.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stu
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 03:51 PM

Halibuts.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 07:00 PM

"meaningless."
About as meaningless as your response
Want some more examples of Israeli equality - just let me know!!
Jim Carr

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 07:49 PM

Jim, Steve is right. Constant dredging brings up the muck no matter who you speak of. The US Confederates still want to avenge the South, the Irish are not amnesic, Israel is well aware of the holocaust training that has bred vicious defensiveness for the next 1000 years or more.
Need I mention the American racial strife?

torture and starve your dog and it will turn against you. We all know this already.

Finding ways to promote civil rights bottom up or top down will do more good for both sides. Your forever fruitless arguments will never bring the benefits of defeating even one right wing authoritarian war monster.

The end game is civil rights.

Jus sayin you're stuck in a loop mate.
Obsessing on hate promotes no love and no rights.



My dictator is Trump

All in all, he's just another prick - with a wall.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 10:33 PM

"meaningless."

Totally!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jan 17 - 04:14 AM

"Jim, Steve is right."
Not quite sure of your point Donuel ((I assume you mean Bobad)
If you do, he is most certainly not right and never has been.
He claims an equality and democracy for Israel that does not exist, certainly not for non-Jews in todays Israel.
Comparisons with other examples of non-democracy is evasive and stupid.
Israel is now an extremist right wing state which has adopted an ethnic cleansing policy and is rapidly heading for fascism.
Bobad is the last to complain about dredging as he one trawled the web, drawin from the most extremist right-wing, racist sites, to produce one of the largest series of Islamophobic claims I have ever seen on this forum.
His vitriolic hate posts in response to any criticism of Israel that appears- in own antismitic accusation that any criticism of Israel is an attack on The Jewish People, make him the most unpleasant and cowardly poster on this site.
I assume that his slight 'toning down' is due to the fact that he has probably been warned of his behaviour - i he starts up again, I will make every effort to have him removed from this forum.
That is not the behaviour that should be tolerated on a debating site.
As far as I am concerned, the present Israeli regime has betrayed the Jewish people - they have turned the State into a persecutor of Arabs, as the German State became a persecutor of Jews.
I spent my twenties and thirties with Jewish People - all of whom were appalled at what Israel was becoming, even then.
My father fought in Spain alongside Jews who later became freedom fighters for New Israel - some came to his funeral.
I an not prepared to stay silent while a ranting cowardly little shit, from his anonymity, calls me an antisemite every time I express my opinion that these right-wing scum have destroyed the Dream I and my family always treasured.
The links I put up are indicative of what has happened to Israel - a state that is now interfering with British politics in the same way as has been revealed that Russia interfered with American politics.
If you or he believe that they are faked, fin, prove they are.
Do not tell me not to put them up.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Jan 17 - 11:57 AM

Perhaps you all enjoy the kind of banter one might hear in Parliament squabbling. It is a rhetorical game that requires life long practice beginning in school. Some play the game with wit and wisdom and some do not.

I do not play that game. I am outside of that game. My talents lie elsewhere in a perspective of large time scales, the slow evolution of the human psyche and the ability to allocate intellectual energy more efficiently and productively.

Jim, I do not challenge your facts and observations, I challenge your personal allocation of intellectual energy. You are in danger of becoming a one trick pony stuck in a loop which could make you appear to be an asset to a foreign power which is not your intention.

Let bobad be bobad. I will not blame the gamer, I blame the game
I like the man, I like you. Steve is charming in his friendly egalitarian way. Keith is wise, Teribus is a permanent landmark, Dave is mushy and clever, we are all a good sort. don't you think.
You spent your whole life being you so new perspectives may be slow.

What I see wasted is a great potential for advancement of perspective.

The example of a new perspective is a scientist who wittingly or not made a deadly weapon and decides that research into civil rights and equality science better suited him or her.

That pov change may not suit you but sometimes even a small change can make certain goals less boring and more spot on.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Jan 17 - 12:11 PM

How to play the boring game in this world of desperate need for dommon ground and insight and poor listeners.

First put some personal insults directed at you in quotes.

Second let you ego respond with the bile of your choice.

Third provide "proof" of your wisdom and the cause of your outrage

FOURTH Dismiss or ignore all other perspectives.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Jan 17 - 12:13 PM

Let play resume.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jan 17 - 12:30 PM

Let play not resume. Or, at least, not without a red card.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jan 17 - 12:49 PM

Don't understand a word of that Donuel?
Want to slim int down to readable English?
I suggest that if you were the target of the constant accusation of Anrisemitism you might think twice about letting Bobad be Bobad.
That you like or dislike him is down to your taste and nothing to do with what he is, à chacun son goût", as they say.
His viciousness far exceeds anything I have ever encountered and breaches one of the conditions we were all presented with on joining.
I joined up to discuss topics that interest me - I am neither interested in or qualified to deal with disfuncional children
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Jan 17 - 01:42 PM

Jim you have thicker skin than Trump. You thought you had a hard time understanding my point of view but it took me weeks to understand where you were coming from. The whole time I was leery of your underlying motives.. We all have specific unique talents expertise and experiences. I believe you can make a more innovative approach to inform and most importantly find potential solutions to conflict. Maybe you prefer the attention of this anti-anti Semitic attack mode. I bet some people don't get it. Repetition won't help them.

I have sometimes seen spiteful comments , barbs and accusations in Parliament. Everyone there has an agenda, axes to grind and 3rd party promises to keep. In the microcosm of mudcat it is possible to do something better than repeat an archaic process.

There are people who NEVER can see outside the box but are still useful. Those people are trapped inside the box. Don't get trapped.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jan 17 - 01:49 PM

But, if we can see outside the box, does the cat still exist?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 08 Jan 17 - 02:30 PM

The cat can be both alive and dead, but preferably the latter if associated with this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jan 17 - 04:44 PM

What would you know, Iains? Just showing up for a quick snipe? That technique is lifted perfectly out of bobad's book.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Jan 17 - 05:24 PM

I am afraid of what has crept into the box.

A deep penetrating anger and fear of terrorism, extremism and blind tribal reactionism. Not enough to effect routine but still effect interactions.

It is of course irrational. It would be more rational to fear the causes of heart disease or cancer.

There is a blunt wisdom of fighting fire with fire. I have been thinking about a process of fighting crazy with crazy. Some of us know the crazy projects of D ARP A to make the ultimate gun, the ultimate camouflage and ultimate soldier. Unlike the military my idea involves the dissolution of civil rights too, but not all the way to death or permanent injury. The idea is not entirely new but best left unsaid. For the idea please send me 50 million dollars in Krugerrands.



I wonder if it was Rap who said "the creepy cat crept into the crypt, crapped and crept out again."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Jan 17 - 07:55 PM

Anyway Corbyn sounds like a good guy to me but I know no details.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Jan 17 - 09:33 PM

Gentlemen: I received a complaint about this thread, so I took a look. The most recent part is filled with petty personal squabbles. I deleted thirty or so of the most recent posts, but there's still too much crap here to bother doing housecleaning.
Cut it out. It's boring. Get back on topic, or we'll have to close the thread.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 17 - 07:09 AM

Corbyn IS a good guy and I'd vote for him again tomorrow. He has more integrity in his little finger than all the Tory and most of the Labour parliamentary parties combined. But he's doomed because he doesn't fit into the current political hegemony in this country. He is the most unpopulist person in this world of populist, soundbite, megaphone, race-to-the-bottom politics and he isn't going to change (thankfully). The worry is that the two-time losing big-hitters of the past will regain the reins. There would be no more chance of any of them guiding Labour to victory than if Jeremy stayed in post. I'm too much of a dyed-in-the-wool leftie to cheerfully advocate what has been clumsily called a progressive coalition. I can't stand the LibDems and regarded their deserved near-obliteration as the only good outcome of the last election. The SNP are waiting-in-the-wings opportunists who are currently drowning in tactics rather than clear policy and the Greens are just nowhere. It may be the only way, though. Brexit is an unmitigated disaster and May will come out of it very badly, so who knows?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jan 17 - 07:27 AM

Steve, do people even know what he and Labour stand for?
Guardian yesterday,
Tom Watson, Labour's deputy leader, has effectively admitted that the party does not have a clear immigration policy, saying it was "unfair" to expect the party to have one when the government's own position on the issue was so vague.
In an interview with Sophy Ridge on Sunday on Sky News, he indicated his own personal support for abandoning the commitment to free movement for EU citizens, arguing: "For the Labour party what we can't support is the status quo."
But, despite being asked five times, he refused to confirm that the party as a whole had given up defending EU free movement. When pushed, he told Ridge: "It's unfair of you to ask what Labour's notional position is when we don't even know what Theresa May's negotiating position is on free movement.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Jan 17 - 08:01 AM

I agree Keith, Mr Corbyn has boxed himself into the same corner as our friends on the left here in Mudcat. He is allowing himself to be ruled by ideology rather than be honest with himself.
He has always opposed the EU but thought there might be some political advantage of being on what he supposed to be the winning side in the EU referendum.
To me he has been disappointing in that respect.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Allan Conn
Date: 09 Jan 17 - 09:02 AM

Steve whatever one's thoughts on Scottish independence are, and I have no wish to go down that argument again on here, it is simply wrong to suggest that the SNP are being opertunistic over this issue. They are balancing the mandate they got from their own voters at the last Scottish and Westminster elections with the outcome of the last indie referendum and with the clear vote within Scotland to stay in the EU but throughout they have been consistent despite what sections of the media say.

At the indepedence election one of the main planks of the unionist argument was that only by staying within the UK can Scotland guarantee its place in the EU. The SNP at the last Scottish elections which was before the EU vote stated in their manifesto that although their long term aim is indepedence the election itself was not about that. It clearly states that they would only look towards another independence vote if one of two things happened. Either it became evident that a "clear majority" of the Scottish electorate wanted independence or if there was a significant material change. And the example it gives in the manifesto as a material change was if Scotland is taken out of the EU against the will of the Scottish voters. Many people might not like that but that is the manifesto that gave them victory in the Scottish elections. To now ignore that commitment would mean that Sturgeon is just another politician who breaks their election promises.

That is why they have put are putting in place legislation to hold a referendum if it comes to that. However rather than rushing to another vote (which she probably wouldn't want in the short term as the polls are pretty much as they were on the indie vote day) they have said that if there is a so called soft-Brexit, or even if Scotland's place within the single market can be secured even if the UK as a whole has a hard Brexit, then there would not be another vote in the short term. Whether an agreement to that could ever be met is another thing of course but the main point is that she is sticking to her election pledge to her own supporters whilst at the same time at least attempting to find some solution within the UK without the need for another indie vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 17 - 10:11 AM

Well I actually support the aims of the SNP, Allan. As I say, though, that are in tactical limbo at the moment, desperate to get independence but knowing they can't win another referendum. They are in no position to get a different and more favourable brexit deal than anyone else but all they can do is make threatening noises.

The only party whose "immigration policy" is clear is the one you have spent weeks doughtily defending, Keith, the racist UKIP. The Tories are all over the shop with their confused take on the single market vs open borders, as with everything else to do with brexit, so don't try to come that one. And, my word, hasn't their policy been successful so far! "Down to the tens of thousands" my arse. Go on, blame the LibDems! 😂We all know that your mission in life is to punch holes in Labour at every opportunity. Well no-one important is listening to you, Keith. You are spent. Yesterday's man.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 17 - 10:13 AM

they are

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jan 17 - 12:49 PM

Steve,
The only party whose "immigration policy" is clear is the one you have spent weeks doughtily defending, Keith, the racist UKIP

I remind you that you have failed to show that UKIP are racist, so just name calling again Steve.
And I have not defended them. I just asked you to back your claims about them.
You couldn't.

All four main parties are committed to reducing immigration, including Labour before Corbyn.
Maybe it still is Labour policy, or maybe not.
Who knows?
Not the Deputy Leader anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jan 17 - 01:09 PM

Don't respond Steve - that way lies madness
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 17 - 01:47 PM

Can't, Jim. I'm halfway through doing my bacon and three-bean risotto. Only way I can persuade Mrs Steve to let me open a bottle on Mondays....

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jan 17 - 04:48 AM

Don't respond Steve - that way lies madness

Because you can not challenge a word I have said, so better hide.