BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jun 17 - 04:23 PM

Come on Raggy, heel boy, heel.

Do your pals have a stick that you can fetch?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Jun 17 - 05:37 PM

" a sound, costed manifesto."....you must be joking, it was the old political tactic of promising everything.

We are now in the position of having to seriously consider living within our means.   I thought better of Mr Corbyn.
"Electability" is meaningless unless the economy is functioning at an efficient level....at the moment we depend on cut price immigrant labour......not a socialist principle surely? Also zero hours contracts, lack of housing, public services grinding to a halt, NHS in meltdown. How do you cost all these problems, run a full scale nationalisation project and hand out freebies to all and sundry.
It is simply impossible.

If Mr Corbyn cannot be honest with the public he is no better than the Blairites who surround him.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Jun 17 - 06:08 PM

If Mr Corbyn cannot be honest

Is he more or less honest Than your hero Trump, Ake?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jun 17 - 05:03 AM

Greg, what was the point of that intervention?

I made a point regarding the UK election and you start on about Donal John? It does seem that the President wants to get Americans back to work, encourage détente between East and West, cut down on illegal immigration and Islamic terrorism......I agree with these aims and would expect any UK government to pursue the same policies.

Your political establishment AND ours is pretty corrupt and I suppose you see any attempt to break that cabal as an attack on "democracy", when in fact it is the beginnings of proper democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Jun 17 - 09:30 AM

Akenaton, why do you insist on calling DONALD John Trump Donal. Can his parents of Germanic and Scottish stock not choose their own name for their son.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jun 17 - 09:44 AM

So, Ake - would you answer the question, or is all you can do tap dance?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jun 17 - 09:56 AM

Well Greg neither are establishment politicians, so they have half a chance of being honest. :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jun 17 - 12:43 PM

So as far as you are concerned, Trump- a confirmed serial liar, a sexual predator, a man who consistently stiffs his employees and contractors, who has declared multiple bankruptcies to escape paying his just debts, who ran a fake "university" & thus bilked millions of dollars from unsuspecting "students"- this to you is an "Honest" man?

Explains quite a lot, Ake, and makes you totally unfit to render any sort of judgement on Corbyn - or, for that matter, on anything else.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jun 17 - 04:11 AM

Greg, get a grip, don't you realise how the capitalist system works?
All the things you mention with the exception of "sexual predator" are built into that system, in fact they are necessary to keep the system performing.
As you know I am no supporter of said system, so don't think I am an apologist for it......just a realist.


As far as sexual predator is concerned, I seem to remember a certain Democratic hero called Clinton who could teach Donal John a lot about how to deal with young female staff.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jun 17 - 04:40 AM

So that makes it OK then. 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Jun 17 - 09:02 AM

Ake, more great tap-dancing, but you STILL haven't answered the question. As per usual (always?).

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jul 17 - 08:19 AM

"Jeremy Corbyn promises lifelong free education as he demands an overhaul of the economy to stop private firms using technology to destroy jobs"

In other words he's a Luddite - how progressive.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Jul 17 - 08:33 AM

Ah, the Daily Mail headline, word for word.


Now the BBC reports thw same speech starting with "The state should work with business to help the UK maximise the benefits of automation and other technological changes, Jeremy Corbyn has said.

"Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest".

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 06 Jul 17 - 09:09 AM

Corbyn is off in cuckoo land as per normal.
"Technological change need not herald 'era of mass unemployment'"

I would like to see the nuts and bolts of that explained. I would argue that we are at the forefront of massive redundancies due to computerisation, automation and robotics. Front desk banking is evaporating wholesale and automatic checkouts springing up everywhere. Many traditional white collar jobs are capable of being automated. Even segments of education are more efficiently followed online. All these changes are leading, or have led, to massive redundancies. What professions will utilise this brave new world, of a highly educated workforce that will seek positions in a steadily diminishing workplace?

The Luddites rioted because of lost employment. Seems to me around the corner looms a situation where the average Luddite would be regarded as a scruffy little choirboy compared to their modern day brethren.
Chavs on steroids springs to mind. Perhaps this is why the police is increasingly militarised.

Tech change need not herald 'era of mass unemployment'

Typical Labour ploy. Good soundbite with no attempt to cost as someone else will pay or as good Celts perhaps the debt could be paid in the afterlife. Whatever!-They are distinctly divorced from reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jul 17 - 09:16 AM

I would argue that we are at the forefront of massive redundancies due to computerisation, automation and robotics.

Then you are around 35 years behind the times. People have been saying that since the PC was first introduced. The reverse is a lot nearer the truth.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 06 Jul 17 - 10:01 AM

Talking rubbish as usual gnome. And you link goes back to the 19th century. Don't believe we had computers or robotics then. The first desktop computer I used was 1974 (HP2100) The development since then has been phenomenal.



https://www.google.ie/search?q=job+losses+due+to+automation+uk&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gws_rd=cr&ei=uEFeWZ33A4rVgAbgi

The links above beg to disagree with you. In fact they totally reject your supposition.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 17 - 10:29 AM

Ah, predictions, predictions. I seem to remember being told that we'd all be retired by 50 after a working life of two or three days a week and that life would be easy and filled with leisure. Instead, jobs today are more high-pressured than ever, you're watched and assessed all the time, you're expected to work countless extra hours for no extra pay, work-life balance has gone out of the window. So much for those predictions, eh? So you carry on making your apocalyptic predictions, Iains. I'll just sit here waiting for the day when it will finally be shown that you were just making a complete arse of yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jul 17 - 10:45 AM

In fact they totally reject your supposition

Not my supposition. it is A study by economists at the consultancy Deloitte and far from being a supposition , the Study of census results in England and Wales since 1871 finds rise of machines has been a job creator rather than making working humans obsolete

Do you ever actually read anything or do you just keep arguing for the sake of it?

Steve - Sorry but you are behind the times as well. It is already well established that he is a total arse :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Jul 17 - 10:47 AM

Yes, predictions.

We have always predicted new technology would wipe out jobs. It doesnt matter in that sense whether we are talking factory looms or computers. It is certainly true that jobs disappear (I sometimes point out how the photocopier did to copy clerk, and thence the rationale for teaching everyone Copperplate handwriting). But our experience is that manu jobs just change and many unheard of jobs appear - imagine explaining a web designer to a Victorian.

The unanswerable question is whether the total number of jobs afterwards is the same or greater than before. While there are certainly "downs" our experience is that the trend has always been up. Maybe not this time, who knows, but there's no real reason to think that our ability to spot the new jobs coming along is any better than that of our ancestors.

What we do know, though, is that life long education is a great way of dealing with the lack of these new skills. We can't do it just on people up to say 25 and convert everyone over say 35 into the unemployable as the demanded skills change. So Corbyn is absolutely right to link life long education with new technology in the UK's interest.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 06 Jul 17 - 10:49 AM

Shaw there is no dispute that advances in technology replaces jobs. The replacement jobs require a higher skill set. This inevitably leaves some behind as a permanent reservoir of unemployed. So far the argument suggests other jobs are created to make up for those displaced.But today the rate of change is so fast that what was true in the past may not be true in the future. To assume the slack will automatically be taken up could turn out to be horribly wrong and there is no way to make an accurate prediction one way or the other. You may find in the future that your smug complacency is somewhat in error.

https://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21700758-will-smarter-machines-cause-mass-unemployment-automation-and-anxiety

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Jul 17 - 10:54 AM

The replacement jobs require a higher skill set.

Sometimes, but often the skill set is lower, or simply different.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 17 - 11:05 AM

Who says I'm complacent? I'm saying that predictions in this context have a habit of not coming true, and I think that the world is far too complex and dynamic for your simplistic one to be worthy of consideration. And if you insist on using my surname I'll just call you Inane from now on.

So, from hereonin, you're Inane.


Er, "from hereonin?"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 17 - 11:07 AM

And today I hear that robots are replacing sex workers in brothels. More job losses...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 06 Jul 17 - 03:19 PM

Not my view Shaw. I merely echo what is thought to be a real possibility by those better informed to judge than either of us.


http://uk.businessinsider.com/job-losses-automation-pwc-bob-moritz-2017-4

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jul 17 - 03:42 PM

But you completely ignore the opposing viewpoint that I posted because it does not fit in with your per-defined ideals?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Jul 17 - 04:06 PM

I know I am not alone in this but when I left school computers (not that I knew what a computer was) were the size of a small room.

When I retired many years later I had spent much of the previous 25 years sitting in front of a computer, sitting on my desk, in order to conduct my role.

Strange isn't it that the machines that were supposed to sound the death knell of my employment prospects kept me in work for all those years.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 17 - 08:08 PM

Not your view, Inane? But this is a discussion forum. I really do want to hear people's views, not some tedious media pundit's views. Naturally, I anticipate your particular views with relish.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 02:44 AM

Bound to happen I suppose
After the worst Prime Minister in history )Barring Appeasing Chamberlain"
studiously pours her party's majority down the toilet and attempts to make good by doing deals with terrorist-linked parties", the valiant rabid-right desperately fights a rear-guard action
Nice to read of 'equality of opportunity' and 'jobs for all' being describes as 'Luddism'
Puts the state of our present system squarely where it is "and the lord sayeth "those who have shall have even more"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 03:17 AM

Shaw I know it must be an effort for you but try to follow the thread.
I made my view above of how things might progress. The latest post of mine merely gave support to my view. Simples really. So go try to generate an argument elsewhere-that really is the only reason for your last post, is it not?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 03:54 AM

Shaw I know it must be an effort for you but try to follow the thread. I made my view above of how things might progress. The latest post of mine merely gave support to my view. Simples really. So go try to generate an argument elsewhere-that really is the only reason for your last post, is it not?

Errr, and yours isn't?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 05:24 AM

F**K me it's letters of apology that are being demanded now from a female MP for criticising "The Great Leader" now.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 06:13 AM

I wonder what the source is for Teritowellings latest outburst. He has once again failed to give a link to his source.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 06:35 AM

It is hard to be sure but I *think* it is a reference to Roy Bentham criticising Luciana Berger as a result of her resigning from the shadow cabinet in the wake of the EU referendum. His collegues distanced themselves and she has issued a statement in support of Corbyn. Much ado over nothing, methinks, if that is the reference.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 07:33 AM

Rag, I think this is the story.
I am surprised you did not know about it.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/06/labour-mps-critical-of-corbyn-fear-deselection-after-get-on-board-warning

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 07:37 AM

"Ms Berger has subsequently been told she needs to "get on board quite quickly now" and "apologise" for past criticisms of Mr Corbyn. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/06/momentum-win-control-labour-branch-demand-mp-apologises-criticising/

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 07:59 AM

So a "Trade Union Liaison Officer" (Roy Bentham) makes a statement. Some people pounce of it, a poster here tries to make a BIG issue of it but does not link to the article where they found it. Then an article is found by another poster, that article that clearly states:

"local branch Officials on the Wavertree executive later dissociated themselves from Bentham's comments"

The article then goes on to say that a spokesman of Momentum then adds:

"It was a post by a local Momentum group, not by Momentum national. When we found the post we got in touch with the local group and they were happy to take it down as it didn't accord with Momentum's aims and values. In an organisation of 27,000 members, people will sometimes express views that aren't representative of the organisation." "

So we have a statement from is shot down from on high and some people try to blow it out of all proportion.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 10:37 AM

The claim was that an apology was demanded of a female MP for criticising the leader, and it was.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 10:43 AM

I cannot see anything in the article that demands an apology, perhaps you could copy and paste that sentence or phrase.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 10:50 AM

""Ms Berger has subsequently been told she needs to "get on board quite quickly now" and "apologise" for past criticisms of Mr Corbyn. " "

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 10:52 AM

Hi Raggy, thrashing about and gnashing your teeth again? Waz-up they lost your stick doggie?

Here is my post you cretin:

"F**K me it's letters of apology that are being demanded now from a female MP for criticising "The Great Leader" now."

That Raggy if you fail to recognise it is a plain straightforward STATEMENT OF FACT - the demand is unheard of in British politics, or in British society in general, where everybody is not only allowed to hold a personal opinion, but they are also allowed to voice that opinion freely without fear or constraint - Except, as it would seem, in Corbyn's Momentum driven Labour Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 10:56 AM

That's not what the article says is it professor. The article says:

"Luciana Berger was told she needed to 'get on board quite quickly now"

Now please find any bit that mentions an apology.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 10:57 AM

Eh up professor, someone's woken up your Rottweiler !!

Bad dog, no biscuits !!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 01:22 PM

He's not a dog - he's a stoat.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 01:39 PM

"Hi Raggy, thrashing about and gnashing your teeth again? Waz-up they lost your stick doggie?

Here is my post you cretin:"

What a disgrace. You should be sacked.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 02:05 PM

He doesn't need this job, Steve. He has a new career and an alternative reality writer.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 02:12 PM

Now please find any bit that mentions an apology.


""Ms Berger has subsequently been told she needs to "get on board quite quickly now" and "apologise" for past criticisms of Mr Corbyn. " "

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 02:31 PM

You keep mentioning "apologise" professor, but I have not seen THAT word in the article.

So please tell us where "APOLOGISE" occurs.

Simples !

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 08 Jul 17 - 04:22 AM

ttps://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3959629/jeremy-corbyns-momentum-supporters-take-over-local-party-and-demand-apology-from-luciana-be


https://labourlist.org/2017/07/clp-demands-berger-apologise-for-corbyn-criticism-after-momentum-seizes-control/

For those that cannot use a search engine!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Jul 17 - 05:06 AM

For whatever reason I could not get your first link to open Iains.

I can use the internet however and the article cited by the professor made no reference to an apology.

So my next questions are who is Roy Bentham, what on earth is a "Trade Union Liaison Officer" and does that role given him the authority to "advise" a sitting MP on that they can and cannot say and what that sitting MP can or cannot do.

In other words is he a jumped up little oik shouting his mouth off. You may want to recall that:

1. "local branch officials of the Wavertree executive later dissociated themselves from Bentham's comments"

2. "It was a post by a local Momentum group, not by Momentum national. When we found the post we got in touch with the local group and they were happy to take it down as it didn't accord with Momentum's aims and values. In an organisation of 27,000 members, people will sometimes express views that aren't representative of the organisation."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 17 - 05:08 AM

Rag,
You keep mentioning "apologise" professor, but I have not seen THAT word in the article.
So please tell us where "APOLOGISE" occurs.


""Ms Berger has subsequently been told she needs to "get on board quite quickly now" and "APOLOGISE" for past criticisms of Mr Corbyn. " "

Who wants 3000?
My gift.