BS: Labour party discussion

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 12:23 PM

God no. But I have to cut the grass.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: Teribus
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 06:48 AM

Tell me DMcG what it is it that makes it impossible for people to do a bit of research and look for a job before making a move? What resources do you need to do that? Certainly none that require a premier league footballer's wages, in fact they are freely available to all at any Library, Citizen's Advice Bureau, or Job Centre.

Mind you, no wonder you and your pals think life is so difficult for the common man, the person you want to lead the country, couldn't organise a bottle party in a brewery and gets out of a perfectly serviceable seat on a train to sit on the floor, in an attempt to convey the impression that the trains are overcrowded but is dumb enough to be caught on CCTV doing it.

Perhaps you should all be walking round with labels on your necks.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 06:58 AM

Well, mess-ups are all part of being in the public eye. Boris messed up on piccaninnies and call-me-Dave messed up shagging a dead pig's head. Prince Harry messed up by letting someone take a pic of his bare wagging arse as he gave a girl a standing-up one from behind. Naz Shah messed up by agreeing that Israel could be moved to the US. Call-me-Dave messed up by calling a referendum he was certain he would win, then losing it. Michael Foot messed up by not dressing up posh enough at a time when such things mattered. Gordon Brown messed up by forgetting that his mic was still on and over old-age pensions. I could go on. Just a small corrective to anyone who wishes to make capital out of Corbyn's train gaffe. Anyone old enough to remember Jennifer's ear?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 07:02 AM

I have a policy as I have said before on this website that I am happy to debate but try to avoid pointless arguments. I have said all I intend to say on the question of moving for work unless something of significance is said.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 08:06 AM

Any views on Owen Smith's idea of using a general election to approve the results of a Brexit negotiation. It seems to me to be a truly terrible idea. A second referendum would be bad enough but at least would not conflate the results of a negotiation with who governs us for the next parliament.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 08:12 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 08:45 AM

A second referendum would be justified once the details of our exit deal are clear. We should never have had the first one, of course, with an electorate making a choice based on ignorance and the manipulations on both sides of the argument, but we are where we are. General elections should never be predicated on nominated issues. That is not what they are for.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 09:22 AM

Teribus did actually suggest that someone coming to London could find "a cheap B&B", in so many words.

It's easy to get confused about stuff like that, and I assume you weren't intentionally telling a porky, but I suggest you check what you've written, T, before saying you never wrote it.
.........
As for the train, it was clearly crowded since other people were having to sit on the floor.
Reserved seats aren't vacant seats, and nor are seats with bags on them. Obviously Corbyn wouldn't accept being upgraded to First Class while others were still without seats.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 10:01 AM

He was a twit for making an issue out of it. He sorely needed a good spin doctor with him. Ignore it and it'll go away. He made a pig's ear ear of the whole thing, which is at least better than a pig's...oh, never mind...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 10:03 AM

(Ear ear? You're not in the House now, Shaw me lad...)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 11:15 AM

The main problem with a second referendum is that it is almost certain the "It's not good enough" contingent would win and there will be a demand for things to be included that were never part of the negotiation. If in a subsequent negotiation these were granted it is likely something else would have to be traded away. We could get onto a neverendum very easily.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 11:57 AM

The trouble with the kind of referendum Owen Smith seems to be calling for is that it's not clear what,d be on offer. Basically there are three ways to go - there'd be aceepting whatever cobbled up deal the government might manage to get ( if in fact suchh couLd be obtained), there'd be going for pure Brexit, no dealls, and there,d be 'let's call the whole thing off", and staying in the EU.

I suspect that last would probably be the option of preference for most people - but it doesn't seem likely it'd be on offer.

If I had my choice I'd go for a fresh in out vote, but this time with EU imigrants having the same right to vote as Commonwealth immigrants, and a vote for 16 and 17 year olds. Both of which they had in the Scottish independance vote. After all, those are the two groups with most at stake in this.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 12:00 PM

DMcG - 24 Aug 16 - 07:02 AM

And somehow DMcG I get the distinct impression that the only person who you will ever recognise as saying "something of significance" is yourself.

But I did notice you could not answer, or dismiss, any of the points put to you. I will ask again why does it necessarily require someone to be on "above median salary" to do the ground work to look into getting a job before one moves? Rhetorical Question as I have grown used to "socialists" not answering the hard questions put to them - Nothing At All - Just application of plain good common sense - an attribute sadly lacking in our country today it would seem.

Akenaton is perfectly correct most of those calling themselves "socialists" today are nothing of the sort they are a "liberalist" wrecking crew.

As for Brexit negotiations - the Labour Party cannot even organise it's own bloody leadership election without making it a three ring circus - or hasn't that struck home yet, plain and obvious to the rest of the British electorate.

Steve Shaw - 24 Aug 16 - 08:45 AM

"A second referendum would be justified once the details of our exit deal are clear."

If the details of our exit deal are clear numbnuts, that means that Article 50 has already been triggered and we are leaving ( That is not according to me that is according to your pal Jean-Claude Juncker), a second referendum under such circumstances is a complete and utter non-starter - we would have to reapply to join the EU, which would now mean that we would have to ditch Sterling and take on the Euro.

DMcG - 24 Aug 16 - 08:12 AM - I take it that that was something of significance was it?

McGrath of Harlow - 24 Aug 16 - 09:22 AM - The man was caught making a complete and utter arse of himself - live with it. IF he ever wanted to take the episode further Sir Richard Branson would make complete and utter mincemeat of him - hopefully, unlike you, Seumas Milne will realise that and put it to bed as quickly as possible and bury it even quicker.

Shaw seems to be obsessed with this pig's head thing - tell me Shaw, I take it that you did go to university - while there Shaw, did you consider yourself to be in the public eye?? Oh hang about, you are just vain enough to believe that you were.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 12:06 PM

McGrath of Harlow - 24 Aug 16 - 11:57 AM

You forgot your most important condition for your second referendum Kevin - those likely to vote "Leave" are not entitled to vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 12:30 PM

So it's ok to shag a dead pig's head as long as you do it in private....😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 01:08 PM

If, McGrath, the referendum were on whether you wanted option a, b, or c then we could get the whole thing over relatively quickly, though with massive arguments on what a, b and c are, and whether d should be on the list as well. But the real danger lies in a yes/no referendum, because a vote of 'no' would put us in a very difficult position where the EU and negotiators had agreed the exit terms but the country had rejected them. Heaven only knows what would happen then.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 01:14 PM

About as democratic as the rule they had this time, which was that those two categories of people, the ones most likely to vote Remain, were excluded.

In these days when commercial interactions are taken to be the only really acceptable way of managing things, there'd be a good case for the kind of protection customers are meant to have. If you buy something on the basis of demonstrably false claims about what it can do, the deal is void. And if you sign up to a deal and rapidly realise you were foolish in doing so, you have a period of grace during which you can cancel it.

Apply those terms to the Brexit vote...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 07:41 PM

McGrath of Harlow - 24 Aug 16 - 01:14 PM

"About as democratic as the rule they had this time, which was that those two categories of people, the ones most likely to vote Remain, were excluded."

Complete and utter BS Kevin there is no Option (a), (b), or (c). The choice is "In" or "Out" and when they held the referendum those who were thought to vote most likely to remain didn't - traditional grass roots Labour voters.

The referendum was about whether or not the UK electorate wanted to remain in the EU or not - EU citizens living and working in the UK did not and quite rightly should have had no say whatsoever in that vote, it was a vote for the electorate of the UK and for them alone. EU citizens after all do not get to vote in our General Elections do they?

The referendum has been held the result was that we are leaving - live with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 07:44 PM

Mr T, you're an obnoxious idiot. Live with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 08:23 PM

True, EU nationals resident in the UK do not get to vote in natiinal elections. (Apart from English, Scots, Welsh and Irish). Citizens of Commonwealth countries resident in the UK do get to vote in national elections. So long as people are 18 or more.

But in local elections all EU residents get to vote.

That's how it is. That's "the UK Electorate". Nothing particularly logical or consistent about that. Nothing set in stone. It will change when we leave the EU, because the EU residents, even if allowed to stay, will lose their vote in local elections.

I'd prefer the way they did it in Scotland for the independence referendum - everybody got to vote, from 16 up. I'd see that as a significantly more democratic electorate.

The vote was whether Britain should stay in the EU. Not allowing EU residents a say in that wasn't a matter of "of course". It was anti democratic and shameful. More so because all the parties colluded in it.