BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 06:45 AM

Anyway, back to Labour. (We do tend to drift).

Corbyn is a politician, not a God. As I said above when I said I had voted for him, I am not impressed with his ability to learn how to handle the press. This train mess up is a prime example: he had a valid point - train overcrowding - but by inept handling that has been lost in a debate about his honesty. It was interesting to hear on Newsnight that if he if he had said this was the sort of thing you could see most days they would have been content: it was the statement that day was one such day that has caused all the furore.

Now, Teribus said this would not disturb people like me much. And he is quite right, but not because I follow Corbyn blindly. It is because I had factored such messes into the decision already. And there will be more, I am certain.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 06:26 AM

I'm not preaching to anyone, unless it is a plea for more care in constructing arguments. Don't say things are options if in many cases they aren't. Don't talk about moving to find work if you mean finding work and then moving and don't declare things "impossible" if you would readily admit it is perfectly possible if you have plentiful resources. Jim, I am confident, would say such moves are perfectly possible if you are a premier league footballer or daddy buys you a house. His "impossible" had unstated caveats as most readers would understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 06:07 AM

DMcG - 24 Aug 16 - 04:26 AM

"None of which detracts at all from the fact that people can move to find work - they do it all the time". (Teribus)

A subtle distinction, perhaps, but an important one. I know lots of people who have found a job elsewhere and then moved to it - I have done so myself many times. I know a handful of people who moved to London without a job in the hope of finding one. None of them managed it,

Thereby proving to age-old saying - "Look before you leap".

Also common sense should tell anyone that planning and preparation tend to pay off in any enterprise undertaken. Tell Jim Carroll about it, in me, DMcG you are preaching at the converted.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 04:26 AM

"None of which detracts at all from the fact that people can move to find work - they do it all the time".

A subtle distinction, perhaps, but an important one. I know lots of people who have found a job elsewhere and then moved to it - I have done so myself many times. I know a handful of people who moved to London without a job in the hope of finding one. None of them managed it, though one had seven zero hour contracts simultaneously in the hope of making enough to live. Didn't work out.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 03:57 AM

No you didn't say it would be cheap but you did say it was an option. I merely point out that due to cost it may not be. Equally your option of saying with friends and family wasn't an option for us as there weren't any.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 02:30 AM

DMcG that would be the B&B that you selected. Please point out where I said such accommodation would be cheap - I didn't.

None of which detracts at all from the fact that people can move to find work - they do it all the time.

It is not the Government's responsibility to guarantee anybody a job on their doorstep.

It is not the Government's responsibility to guarantee anybody a job for life.

Things that happen in life are not always somebody else's fault. In a free society the individual is largely responsible for himself or herself and it is the duty of the parents and the education system to make every single child in their care aware of that and prepare that child for those future responsibilities. Do anything other than that and you are doing that child a grave disservice that will disadvantage it for the rest of his/her life.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 01:42 AM

You don't read very carefully, Teribus. I was making two related points. Firstly, b and b was a lot more expensive than had been suggested and, as I explicitly said, it was only possible because my salary was far above the median.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 01:11 AM

Latest Corbyn Stunt: "The Train Journey"

"Mr Corbyn's seemingly uncomfortable journey to Newcastle to attend a hustings with Owen Smith, his rival, afforded the Labour leader a golden opportunity to reprise one of his themes – the renationalisation of the railways. How could we allow a state of affairs to continue, he asked, where people have to sit on the floor for a three-hour journey? It's not the fault of the train staff who were, of course, "absolutely brilliant" being working people; it was the system that was wrong. There were too few trains and as a result they were "ram-packed and incredibly expensive". Could there be a better case for taking the railways back into public ownership? The Guardian stated that "Jeremy Corbyn, famed for standing up for his principles, sat down for them".

Only it was all a sham. The Labour leader did have a seat on the train and in CCTV footage released by Virgin, the train operator, he can be seen occupying it. The man who has supposedly brought us the "new politics" turns out to be just as a shameless an exponent of the media stunt as all the others, only less competent. Doubtless this will make little difference to his band of Left-wing disciples for whom the ends justify the means. {Pssst That's you Shaw, Carroll, Raggy, DMcG and anyone else daft enough to vote for this prat} There will also be many commuters travelling into London with Southern Railway who recognise the problem of overcrowding, though they mainly have the RMT union to thank for that."

What better example of inept misrepresentation could you be shown, wonder if his pal Seumas Milne had anything to do with the orchestration of this farce?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 12:50 AM

So you did manage it then DMcG, as did Carroll, only thing is he reckons it's impossible for anybody to do - but out of the three of us the success rate at the moment stands at 100% - strange that isn't it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 04:01 PM

I moved down there, as we were discussing.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 03:42 PM

DMcG you were working in Southampton for a limited period? Or did you eventually move down there. The latter case is what we are looking at, at least it was in Carroll's case, he moved down to London to get work and stay there. Wages higher in London?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 03:38 PM

If the length of the stay isn't fixed in advance, it is an indefinite stay. What else would you call it?

And if it's going to last until the visitor has a steady job, and decent accommodation at a fair rent, it's only to likely to be pretty extended.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 02:00 PM

As an example I stayed in a b+b in Southampton as an alternative to a 6 hour daily commute for around six months when I changed job. That cost £56 per day or a bit over £1000 a month (out of income after tax). Simultaneously I was paying a mortgage on the house my wife was in. That wasn't easy on a good salary. Doing it on the median salary would have been impossible (and the six hours commute wasn't a cheap alternative either)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 01:53 PM

MGOH could you please tell me exactly when staying with someone temporarily = " to put up an extra person for an indefinite time"

You are the last person to talk about their arguments being "shaky"

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 01:26 PM

Teribus's suggestions are pretty shaky. None of them are any good to anyone with a family wishing to move to London for work. And even for people on their own, by no means everyone has friends of family with room to put up an extra person for an indefinite time. That's even more true in the wake of the bedroom tax.

As for cheap B & B, decent ones are far and few. And "cheap" doesn't mean the same as it used to. Renting a bedsit in somewhere in commuting distance would set you back about £100 a week if you were lucky, and commuting fares are expensive.

You'd need to be in a well paid steady job for solutions like that to be available.

The system is broken. And the people who broke it are very much in charge.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 01:12 PM

Well it does seem to me that Teribus is much better informed and has a much rounder life experience than you who profess left wing ideals but seem to have absolutely no idea of how socialism may be attained or even if it would be in your interests.
You are really just "liberals" a means of producing a dampening effect on wealth creation.

I prefer people like Mr T and Keith who are certain of their political views and live by them. They know they are right because they have seen capitalism rise and rise again ....we are all certainly better off than at any part of my life.
They are correct and I've said it before that the Conservative party runs the capitalist system in the UK in the most efficient manner.


My stance is that capitalism has become unsustainable and that we must learn a completely different way of survival as a society.
I respect people with different views providing they are sincerely held and the holders have a reasonable understanding of their own ideology and the views of others.

You people lack the necessary respect to conduct yourselves in debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 12:23 PM

God no. But I have to cut the grass.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 11:43 AM

How drearily predictable Shaw, that really the best you can do?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 10:08 AM

You're certainly on the far right side of things, that's for sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 10:00 AM

So far Shaw I've been right about a damn sight more things than you clowns have.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 09:00 AM

You could well be. Don't tempt us.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 08:51 AM

Ake, in another thread Carroll was stating that it was impossible for people to move in order to find work, particularly if that person was moving from the North to the South-East. I pointed out the fact that he himself had done that very thing, but he still insisted that it was impossible for people to do it and he kept on challenging me to state how such people could find accommodation. I gave him three likely scenarios:

1) As a temporary measure you stay with friends or relatives (I have done that when working abroad twice)
2) You rent a room as a lodger or find a cheap B&B (I did that when working in the North-East of England, in Glasgow and up in the North-East of Scotland)
3) You rent within commuting distance of your work where rents may be cheaper.

Jom was having none of it - yet in the current MacColl thread he told us that when he first moved down to London to look for work he stayed with Ewan MacColl and Peggy Seeger - so Jom went for solution No.1.

Talking about apologies Jom where is mine regarding your incorrect snipe about the Labour Party needing the votes of the electorate?

Teribus: "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)"

Jim Carroll: 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?"

Of course Jom's knee-jerk reaction and default position meant that he either didn't bother reading what had been said, or he did read it and just plain didn't understand it - he does that on far too many occasions for it to be an exception.

When Keith A pointed out his error Jom did apologise to Keith - Now how about me Jom? Or am I still really the person that never gets anything right?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 08:04 AM

Come on Jim, you can hardly blame T for abusing or killing the thread, almost every one of your responses to me have contained insults regarding racism, Fascism or homophobia, allegations of ignorance and stupidity, claims that I am a secret "right winger"....all personal stuff to avoid a proper discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 04:57 AM

Your failure top answer - what else?
We could have all moved in with the MacColls - of course
Feckin SS eejit!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 04:00 AM

Directed at anyone Jom or just simply more inane magpie chatter?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 03:57 AM

On the other hand, why be ungracious
I suppose that is the nearest we'll ever ger to a withdrawal and an admission that your stupid statement was agenda-driven stupidity
Apology accepted
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 03:23 AM

Stupidly evasive as ever
You really shouldn't post after closing time!!
And another one bites the dust
You rack 'em up, don't you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 02:34 AM

Jim Carroll - 19 Aug 16 - 02:55 PM

"........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?"

No secret Jom? You finally gave me an answer to what you did when you left to come South to London to find work - You moved in with Ewan MacColl and Peggy Seeger for a month. Where did this bit come from that you just tacked on the end there in your usual "shifting the goalposts" manner - "looking for jobs in places where there are no homes to rent?" - but you found your way round that didn't you Jom - It was also a solution that I offered in answer to your daft question at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Aug 16 - 05:53 PM

Well done, DMcG. It won't surprise you to know that I've just voted the same way as you and with the same qualms.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Aug 16 - 05:36 PM

The National Executive should be a different animal following recent elections which voted in six new members who indicate support for Corbyn's views.

But the rift with MPs remains. It gets written up as a clash between the MPs and Corbyn as leader, but the truth is, it's a clash between MPs and the party membership, and that's much more fundamental.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Aug 16 - 05:08 PM

Well done D.....I'm not a Labour party member, but if I was I would certainly have voted for Mr Corbyn.

I'm afraid that even if he wins the vote it wont be the end of this charade......the Blairites are threatening to form a Party within a Party to circumvent the socialist agenda. I still think the end result will be a split with the Blairites claiming to represent the ordinary Labour voters and demanding to be recognised in that role as the official Labour Party.

Mr Corbyns group may be marginalised by the National Executive and the media......he is really up against it!

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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"