 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 27 Jul 17 - 03:46 AM Dave, I am not asking you to discuss anything. Just to clarify your views on Shah. Do you agree with Steve and Jim that her comments were not ant-Semitic and she did not advocate transportation even though she freely admits both, or with me that she did. I doubt that you are concerned about hurting my feelings by disagreeing with me. I am sure you do agree with me but are concerned about your friends' feelings. They are grown men Dave. They know that even friends can not agree on everything. Steve, Very, very clear indeed, Keith. Dave says that the Labour Party is no more antisemitic than any other. That is your opinion, but many promininent members have said that it is. Yes. They have said that Labour has a serious problem with it, not other parties. Labour Jews have complained about the Party's anti-Semitism but none from other parties have. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Jul 17 - 06:41 PM From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 25 Jul 17 - 11:27 AM A post from Keith. "Dave, The Labour party is no more antosemitic than any other That is your opinion, but many promininent members have said that it is." Very, very clear indeed, Keith. Dave says that the Labour Party is no more antisemitic than any other. You say that many prominent members say that it is more antisemitic than any other. So I ask you to name the names of the many prominent members who have SAID THAT LABOUR IS MORE ANTISEMITIC THAN ANY OTHER. You can't name them. The reason for that is that your statement that MANY PROMINENT MEMBERS HAVE SAID THAT IT IS is a downright lie. You know very well that there are NOT many prominent members who have said that Labour IS MORE ANTISEMITIC THAN ANY OTHER. You hedge and ditch around, you fudge and you dissemble. But what you can't bring yourself to do is admit that the statement that MANY PROMINENT MEMBERS HAVE SAID THAT IT IS is pure fiction. You can't support that statement. You lied. You lied over Wheatcroft and you still won't admit it after three years. I'm a very patient man, Keith. You are lying yet again here. I have all the time in the world. I won't drop this. You know that, you clown. God knows why you do it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Dave the Gnome Date: 26 Jul 17 - 05:16 PM Cheap shot, Mike and I know it is beneath you. The things that Dianne Abbot has had to put up with in her career give her a good excuse to make the occasional cock up. In my opinion that is! Keith It is what you have not said that I ask about. There is an awful lot that I have not said about an awful lot of things. I am not going to discuss them with someone who just wants to score points in some bizarre contest that only he knows the rules of. DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: MikeL2 Date: 26 Jul 17 - 01:45 PM HI naah They all come from the Diane Abbot school of Mathematics. Cheers MikeL2 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 26 Jul 17 - 12:30 PM Greg as ever, just personal abuse and nothing at all to say on the subject. The mods choose not to enforce it, but personal abuse is not acceptable on this forum, so neither are you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Greg F. Date: 26 Jul 17 - 12:13 PM Ya know, I'm beginning to think that the Professor is a love child of Donald Trump. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 26 Jul 17 - 12:01 PM Dave, The fact that you do not accept what I have said is neither here nor there. I do accept what you have said. It is what you have not said that I ask about. Since YOU brought Shah back into the discussion some weeks ago now, you have never said if you agree with Steve and Jim that she was not being anti-Semitic and did not advocate the transportation of Jews even though she freely admits she did. Steve, So you lied again, Keith. Tsk. I have not lied. You have not even said what lies you are falsely accusing me of. Tsk tsk. We know for a fact that Labour has a serious problem because of statements from numerous prominent people including Sadiq Khan, Tom Watson, the current and former leaders of Scottish Labour, and the "entire NEC" which includes Corbyn himself. I can give the quotes again, but Dave does not like repetition and circularity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Raggytash Date: 26 Jul 17 - 10:35 AM Meanwhile out here on the Connemara it,s been a mixed day, sunshine this morning and torrential rain this afternoon. Tonight will be another session in a small village along the coast. Bliss! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Jul 17 - 06:33 AM That's fine, Shakey, but let's keep this "bribes" malarkey in its proper wider context. It's what politicians do. And sweetshops. And supermarkets. I'm currently being bribed by M&S with 25% off six. It's not the right word. It might be in Nigeria or Zimbabwe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Jul 17 - 05:59 AM So you lied again, Keith. Tsk. 😂 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Shakey Date: 26 Jul 17 - 05:24 AM @Steve 6:34 I agree completely. Just two clarifications.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Dave the Gnome Date: 26 Jul 17 - 05:14 AM "I have said my piece on antisemitism in the Labour party and on Naz Shah, Keith." No you have not. Yes I have. The fact that you do not accept what I have said is neither here nor there. I have still said it and see no point in taking it any further. We all make prats of ourselves at times, but we do not all post racist comments on social media. What, you mean like like Anne Marie Morris using the word 'nigger'? Which is what I actually brought up. DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 26 Jul 17 - 05:11 AM Steve, To clarify, there was the promise to abolish tuition fees but no promise to cancel student debt. When we discussed it here most people took it to mean that. Front bench labour shadow Minister Imran Husain said at the time, "Every existing student will have all their debts wiped off." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 26 Jul 17 - 05:00 AM Steve, Please back up your assertion that many prominent members of the Labour Party have said that the party is "more antisemitic than any other." I did not put that in quotes, but I refer you to the numerous people I have quoted saying that it is a particular problem for the Party. Dave, I have said my piece on antisemitism in the Labour party and on Naz Shah, Keith. No you have not. You have just said she was a prat. We all make prats of ourselves at times, but we do not all post racist comments on social media. Since YOU brought her back into the discussion some weeks ago now, you have never said if you agree with Steve and Jim that she was not being anti-Semitic and did not advocate the transportation of Jews even though she freely admits she did. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Dave the Gnome Date: 26 Jul 17 - 04:42 AM Experience indicates backpedalling to be extremely hazardous. What, you mean backpedaling on things like calling an election, increasing NI contributions and changing the funding for social care? DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Iains Date: 26 Jul 17 - 04:16 AM Well Steve, the meat of the message was in the last paragraph. Let me elaborate. Sharon Hodgson MP Tweet: "Jeremy Corbyn: Labour could write off historic student debts. All those in their early twenties with student debt vote labour......... Students who have already paid £9000 per year on university tuition fees could have their debts cleared Jeremy Corbyn has revealed" and Imran Hussein is filmed saying:"Jeremy Corbyn has announced that the tuition fees will be abolished straight away from September if there's a Labour government, and that we will bring back immediately EMA."And also that every existing student will have all their debt wiped off". Looking around the table at the pupils he adds: "That's fantastic news, isn't it guys?" If those actions were not designed to make young gullible people vote labour then the moon must be made of green cheese. Now there are many ways of interpreting the above. They were out to deliberately mislead the electorate. They had no idea of the contents of their manifesto. They were indadequately briefed They were not safe to be allowed out on their own They would say anything to curry favour. They were out to buy votes.................................. The labour party is clearly caught both tweeting and in recorded footage proposing actions they are now trying to deny. I hope they have a method statement for backpedalling and that their risk analysis is up to par. Experience indicates backpedalling to be extremely hazardous. Long term they have probably done themselves considerable damage-students past, present and future are unlikely to forget. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: DMcG Date: 26 Jul 17 - 01:57 AM That is an odd choice clip, Iain. I expected to hear a Labour MP talking about student debt, which is the current point of discussion. Since you quoted from the Labour manifesto at length (and I congratulate you for that: I always read all the main parties manifestos before I vote) and go on to say "So above is what the manifesto stated but the message spread by supporters and by the great leader went much further than the above" I take it that you agree, whatever anyone else said, that the manifesto contains no promise to reduce student debt. I have also quoted at length from the NWE article in which Corbyn explicitly says "I don't have the simple answer for it at this stage". Do you agree that "I don't have an answer" is not the same as "I know! Let's pay off all student debt"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 Jul 17 - 07:16 PM But the Tories had to abandon large tracts of their manifesto and sell their souls to the DUP in order to retain power. They are not going to do lots of things they said they'd do. Triple lock, anyone? The LibDems got their hands on a bit of power and immediately went back on their tuition fees promise. Manifestos are more aspiration than promise and 'twas ever thus. You are homing in, for ideological motives, on statements made which are of uncertain meaning that were not even part of a manifesto. Bully for you, the Mail and the Standard, but that's what partisans always do. Politics, dear boy, politics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Iains Date: 25 Jul 17 - 07:04 PM "Any improvement on the Standard and the Mail? 😂😂😂" Interesting the pack still insist on putting the source of the news first and promptly slag it off before trying to manipulate the content to their own agenda. Here is a wriggling labour clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4gZjLiNRbc The actual manifesto states: "Labour believes education should be free, and we will restore this principle. 1o one should be put off educating themselves for lack of money or through fear of debt.There is a real fear that students are being priced out of university education. Last year saw the steepest fall in university applications for 30 years. Since the Conservatives came to power, university tuition fees have been trebled to over £9,000 a year,and maintenance grants have been abolished and replaced with loans.The average student now graduates from university, and starts their working life, withwith debts of £44,000.Labour believes education should be free, and we will restore this principle. 1o one should be put off educating themselves for lack of money or through fear of debt.There is a real fear that students are being priced out of university education. Last year saw the steepest fall in university applications for 30 years.Since the Conservatives came to power, university tuition fees have been trebled to over £9,000 a year,and maintenance grants have been abolished and replaced with loans.The average student now graduates from university, and starts their working life, with debts of £44,000.Labour will reintroduce maintenance grants for university students, and we will abolish university tuition fees. University tuition is free in many northern European countries, and under a Labour government it will be free here too" So above is what the manifesto stated but the message spread by supporters and by the great leader went much further than the above and that is what they are being taken to task on.It may well be politics dear boy politics, but it is also bribery of young people led to believe that what they wanted to hear they actually heard, and as a result voted upon. The Romans called the crime AMBITUS. I think a case could be made for arguing electoral fraud. Perhaps those misguided quotes we hear of were the result of speaking in tongues, or more likely with forked tongues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 Jul 17 - 06:34 PM Bribe, Shakey? Come off it. You could say that any manifesto commitment by any party that favours one particular sector is a bribe, even if it's intended as a correction for unfairness. Thatcher predicated her whole premiership on bribes, if that's the way you want to look at it. She bribed council house owners with massive discounts. She bribed working people by privatising utilities and selling shares at disgracefully cheap prices. Pensioners, who actually vote, have been bribed for decades. The current rash of populist politics is no more than a set of bribes. If that's the way you want to look at it. Alternatively, you could just accept that it's politics, dear boy, politics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: DMcG Date: 25 Jul 17 - 06:30 PM No point in arguing, but since you have read it you will see he gives a list of ways that are not writing off the debt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 Jul 17 - 06:21 PM Cheers, DMcG. Always happy to correct myself and to have the correction reinforced! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Shakey Date: 25 Jul 17 - 06:10 PM Yes I had already read it. Now what do you think he meant with "deal with it"? He was basically promising the (ex)students that they wouldn't have to pay it back; it's called a bribe. It's politics, dear boy, politics |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: DMcG Date: 25 Jul 17 - 06:05 PM Yes. Here is a lengthy clip out of the NME interview: "Yes, there is a block of those that currently have a massive debt, and I'm looking at ways that we could reduce that, ameliorate that, lengthen the period of paying it off, or some other means of reducing that debt burden. I don't have the simple answer for it at this stage – I don't think anybody would expect me to, because this election was called unexpectedly; we had two weeks to prepare all of this – but I'm very well aware of that problem. And I don't see why those that had the historical misfortune to be at university during the £9,000 period should be burdened excessively compared to those that went before or those that come after. I will deal with it." See? No promise to repay the debt. And a clear admission he didnt have a simple answer at that point. The only promise is to look at it and 'deal with' a lack of balance between those on £9000 a year compared to other years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Shakey Date: 25 Jul 17 - 05:55 PM I think in the NME he said that Labour would deal with the debt problem. Can you clarify what he meant? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: DMcG Date: 25 Jul 17 - 05:49 PM Steve's more recent post is correct. On page 43 it says "Labour will reintroduce maintenance grants for university students, and we will abolish university tuition fees." It says nothing about debts built up because of past fees. Claims it did are either mistaken or a delibwrate distortion. In particular the NME interview did not claim Labour would cancel those debts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Shakey Date: 25 Jul 17 - 05:40 PM there was no promise apropos of tuition fees in the Labour manifesto. Check it out. To clarify, there was the promise to abolish tuition fees Well that's cleared that up |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 Jul 17 - 05:18 PM To clarify, there was the promise to abolish tuition fees but no promise to cancel student debt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 Jul 17 - 05:08 PM Any improvement on the Standard and the Mail? 😂😂😂 Presumably I don't need a link to remind you that Cameron said that Article 50 would be triggered the day after the referendum. Or that Theresa May said she would not call an election. Grow up, Iains. It's politics, dear boy, politics. By the way, there was no promise apropos of tuition fees in the Labour manifesto. Check it out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Dave the Gnome Date: 25 Jul 17 - 05:02 PM And even with all these stories from the likes of the Daily Heil they still wiped out the Tory majority. I suspect thst is what rankles our pet right wingers on here most of all. :-) DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Iains Date: 25 Jul 17 - 02:25 PM http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4728138/Nick-Gibb-says-Corbyn-apologise-student-debt.html From the Labour manifesto: The abolition of tuition fees and reintroduction of maintenance grants, at a cost of £11.2bn (Latest revision 100billion+) Labour always has been careless with other people's money! George Osborne's Evening Standard has splashed on Guido's student debt scoop from this morning. Team Corbyn have a new line: that frontbenchers Imran Hussain and Sharon Hodgson were "mistaken" about Labour's policy and shouldn't have said that Jez was planning to wipe out debts. If Corbyn's own top team were mistaken, not sure how voters were meant to understand it. and the icing on the cake is discredited blair's foundation poll results below. https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20170717/281814283912770 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Dave the Gnome Date: 25 Jul 17 - 01:19 PM I have said my piece on antisemitism in the Labour party and on Naz Shah, Keith. No need to repeat it. And yes, I do refuse to drawn any further into you little point scoring game. I am willing to offer a suggestion though. You believe you have won something or another so carry on believing that. I believe that you are barmy so I will carry on believing that. Neither of us are doing anyone any harm. We are both happy. It is a win-win situation and everyone can get on with talking about more interesting things. :D tG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 Jul 17 - 11:59 AM Please back up your assertion that many prominent members of the Labour Party have said that the party is "more antisemitic than any other." I want their names and I want the quotes from them clearly to that effect. And I'm expecting many, which is more than several. You are the master of the throwaway remark that assumes that we're all stupid and that you'll get away with it. So, names and quotes, please. It should be a fairly lengthy post, considering that there are so many. According to you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 25 Jul 17 - 11:27 AM Dave, The Labour party is no more antosemitic than any other That is your opinion, but many promininent members have said that it is. There have been no complaints from Jews in other parties. I said that Shah was a prat (note not just a prat) but you did not believe that. I think that making racist comments is worse than being a prat. You did not say she was anything but a prat, so just a prat to you. What you refuse to say is if you believe as Jim and Steve do that her remarks were not anti-Semitic and she did not advocate the transportation even though she freely admits she did. Will you now? Why not? Nothing circular or repeated. Entirely new. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Raggytash Date: 25 Jul 17 - 10:49 AM I fail to see how posts to this thread prevent other posters enjoying the other threads in the be section. Perhaps you could enlighten us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Dave the Gnome Date: 25 Jul 17 - 09:57 AM Hamster? HAMSTER? Bloody luxury. I used to dream of being a hamster... :D tG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Greg F. Date: 25 Jul 17 - 09:24 AM Not a Hamster, are ya Dave? ;>) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 Jul 17 - 05:21 AM Hang on, I'll pass you a snorkel... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Dave the Gnome Date: 25 Jul 17 - 05:19 AM I can't hear you, Steve. I am up your a***s apparently. Although how you acquired multiple ones, which one I am up and how I got there is a bit of a mystery. :D tG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 Jul 17 - 05:05 AM If you want a shining example of what drives people away, read today's 04.00 am post on this thread. Clearly, the irony has escaped its author. And it not the most abusive of his many abusive posts by a long chalk. It's also odd that he claims that we have driven people away. After all those years of absence he was atttracted to return to join the fray, as was Shakey. I think we may actually draw people in, Dave. Not necessarily life's greatest desirables... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Dave the Gnome Date: 25 Jul 17 - 04:32 AM Another post full of sweetness and light from Inanes. Strange that it follows the unusual 'coincidence' that I highlighted :-) He has neither the knowledge or imagination to create a really good diatribe though. Hope you are taking note, Keith. DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Iains Date: 25 Jul 17 - 04:00 AM Well wrinkled little gnome we probably don't have a compulsion to post as frequently as you and your odious little mates. Unlike some I am not obsessed by mudcat. I will admit to responding to the ridiculous stances taken by your mob and I take pride in responding to your constant insults and bullying. There is a reason few people contribute below the line these days. That reason is you and your little mates insisting you control the content and the direction the dialogue travels. Any counter views are belittled, mocked, bullied, ganged up on................. Do you get the message gnome? You have a disgusting technique of playing the innocent before popping up and firing-quite the coward are you not? In reality you are so far up shaw's a***s you could have a second career as a suppository. When you and you pathetic little mates clean up your act we could have far more interesting debates with much wider participation. You can hand it out but the least whiff of a response and you all start screeching, normally led by jimmy the ranter who pops up in all sorts of places just to criticise. I wonder how many appeals to the mods you all make between yourselves. The typical response of bullies. Sad little people really, are you not? and we must not forget greg. A man with a severe medical problem of incessant trumping. Someone should tell him there is a cure for flatulence. According to recent rumours he is so full of shit he requires 2 assholes, this may account for the flatulence I suppose. Have a nice day |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Dave the Gnome Date: 25 Jul 17 - 02:57 AM Iains - No posts between Aug 00 and Apr 16 Shakey - No posts between Sept 05 and Jul 17 Iains - Stops posting on this thread 24-Jul-17 - 06:45 AM Shakey - Starts posting on this thread 24-Jul-17 - 06:17 PM Not that I am one for conspiracy theories or anything... Something about you brings then out of the woodwork Steve :-) DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Jul 17 - 09:12 PM Well in a way I suppose that independently-minded people always have a sort of arms-length relationship with anything they decide to join, whether it's the pub session, the bowling club, a trade union or a political party. On the whole, though, you might have thought that the person joining would see at least some good... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Shakey Date: 24 Jul 17 - 08:48 PM I did of course count the number of paces to the shed just in case I ever need to dig it up :-) Nighty night |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Shakey Date: 24 Jul 17 - 08:45 PM Hatchet has been buried and I've even laid a nice piece of turf over it so you can't even tell it's there. Yes I've had a strange relationship with LP, no I'm not going to go into it now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Jul 17 - 08:36 PM I'm a very simple man, Shakey. You told us that you've been a member since 1976 yet you haven't had a single good word to say about it. Forgive me for thinking that your standpoint is distinctly odd. I don't generally play word games and the only tactic I tend to employ is to ask people what they actually mean by what they've said. I invite you to clarify your apparently strange relationship with the Labour Party. If you don't bother, I won't say another word. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Shakey Date: 24 Jul 17 - 08:26 PM You used the word hate twice in quick succession when actually I never said it once. You've just told us that you've been a member of a party you appear to hate for forty years. Now did you mean this, if you did please quote where I've said I have hated the LP for 40 years. Or did you mean You've just told us that you've been a member of a party for forty years you appear to hate which I think you'll agree has a different meaning. No matter but if this is what you meant then please quote where I simply hate the LP - slightly easier except that I never said that either did I? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Shakey Date: 24 Jul 17 - 08:17 PM That's an interesting debating tactic you have Steve, first criticize someone and then ask for their standpoint. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Donuel Date: 24 Jul 17 - 08:09 PM Steve thank you, Out of character I stole that joke from Steven Colbert |