BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 08:49 AM

"The overall student debt is around £75 billion. It's a meaningless number as most student debt will not be paid off. "

If that is the case, why are we wasting the money in trying to educate these people? Why is the debt not being paid? Are there simply not enough highly paid jobs to go round? Are they too stupid to pass the exams? Are the courses not designed for the work available? Are too many dropping out early?

We need to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 08:35 AM

I suggested this weeks ago, we are leaving the EU and it is important that unity is shown in obtaining the best possible terms.

The main sticking point is "Free movement", everything hinges on that, a red line for the EU....they cannot allow associate membership or any other get out unless we accept "Free movement" and we have realised that our infrastructure and public services simply will not stand the additional numbers arriving here.
We have also begun to realise the societal problems involved in a mass influx of other cultures and religions with the associated terrorist implication.

Mr Corbyn has always been anti EU and if he is indeed a statesman, he will use his present popularity amongst the young to make these negotiations end positively for Britain.
He could ditch his principles for short term political gain, but I think that would prove counter productive for himself and the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 08:00 AM

As far as I am concerned that is the was governments should work. In some ways a minority or shared administration is better than one that can railroad everything through by sheer force of numbers. Compromise and mutual agreement is something that could help stem the flow of the more extreme policies on all sides. Maybe here as well although I would hold out less hope of getting a compromise from some on here than from either May or Corbyn :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 06:11 AM

At first glance this may seem to be a positive move, however it can also be construed as a sign of weakness or if things go pear-shaped a chance to shift the "blame" to other parties.

It should be interesting to follow this particular story.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 06:04 AM

So it seems May intends to call on Labour to work with the Tories on policies they agree on and find a constructive way forward on the others.

Sounds unlikely to succeed but it would be interesting to hear our warring faction here make some proposals the other side will support.

The floor is open ...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 05:50 AM

The link was a simple cut and paste Dave. No problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 05:47 AM

For future reference to anyone interested there is a finite limit on the number of words in the link maker so sometimes a link is not created correctly. It is easy to get round. Just create the link and, when you paste it into your message, add the words that have been left off, usually the tail end of the link, manually. Seemples :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 05:35 AM

The Link

This should be your "missing link" professor

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 05:31 AM

Yup that works.

So much for "Rag, Telegraph links are too long for the Mudcat link maker"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 05:29 AM

Telegraph Link

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 05:04 AM

I gave two links in quick succession, before Rag or anyone else could respond.

Rag, Telegraph links are too long for the Mudcat link maker.
I gave the address.
You can subscribe for free to read several articles a week.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 04:32 AM

Nothing passive-aggressive in my posting. Just facts. Sorry if they don't fit in with your predefined notions.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jul 17 - 07:57 PM

The overall student debt is around £75 billion. It's a meaningless number as most student debt will not be paid off. The actual cost of scrapping the debt will be about eight billion a year or less. Whilst this is not insignificant, can we please lose the scaremongering?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jul 17 - 06:59 PM

There is no manifesto in operation at the moment as there is no election in the offing. And I don't know where you magicked a hundred billion from. Even the most rabidly anti-Corbyn Daily Mailite zealot hasn't come up with a figure anything like that. Have a nice cup of tea and have an early night. You'll feel much better in the morning.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jul 17 - 06:10 PM

Ah more passive-aggressive crap from Gnome.

Apparently now that the Labour Party have realised what scrapping University Tuition fees is going to cost - it is now no longer an election manifesto pledge - with a bill estimated at over £100 billion the Shadow Labour education spokesperson has said that scrapping these fees is only an ambition and that it will not become a firm pledge until Jeremy & Co find some way of paying for it. The lady also conceded that the cost of tertiary education is NOT putting off students from lower income families.

Just as well Corbyn didn't get in just think of the anger of all those student vote he tried to buy once they found out that it was all just an electioneering stunt.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jul 17 - 04:21 PM

Terrikins has long since realised that the likes of yourself, "Good man" Shaw, Jom, Gnome, pfr, etc are only interested in arguing points

Why bring me in to it it Terilove? I have not really been involved.

As it happens, Keith's original link does not contain the word 'apologise'. It really is quite simple. Click the link. Do a search on the word. See if comes back with anything. It doesn't.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jul 17 - 04:08 PM

Raggy, Terrikins didn't bother to provide a link because Terrikins has long since realised that the likes of yourself, "Good man" Shaw, Jom, Gnome, pfr, etc are only interested in arguing points and no matter what "evidence" (Usually easily substantiated) put in front of you, for you yourselves to check - you generally do not bother, blinded as you are by your idiotic ideology.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Jul 17 - 02:44 PM

You didn't link to the Telegraph originally though did you, you linked the the Guardian. The link you provided was:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/06/labour-mps-critical-of-corbyn-fear-deselection-after-get-on-board-warning

In that link there is no mention of the word APOLOGISE

Futhermore Terikins didn't provide any link, so no change there.

In your next post there was no "blue clicky" and I have far better things to be with my time than follow empty posts.

(PS. I have now found one has to subscribe to read the whole article)

Eventually Iains DID provide a link, all credit to him for doing so.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jul 17 - 02:10 PM

Your link did not contain the word APOLOGISE did it.

Yes.
What is wrong with you?
One more time!


"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: 09 Jul 17 - 05:47 AM

Your link did not contain the word APOLOGISE did it.


Iains link did contain the word APOLOGISE.


We still do not know Terikins source because he has failed to provide a link.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jul 17 - 04:57 AM

I do not lie Rag.
You posted,
"I wonder what the source is for Teritowellings latest outburst. He has once again failed to give a link to his source. "

Teribus probably thought a link unnecessary as the story was widely reported.

You wondered about it so I provided TWO LINKS just 80 minutes later, before anyone else did.

You lie, I do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Jul 17 - 04:45 PM

You really are a lying little toe-rag aren't you professor

"Steve, I clarified a point for Rag that he said he wondered about because no link had been provided!

Iains, bless him, provided a link. You and your rottweiler did not.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 17 - 12:52 PM

Steve, I clarified a point for Rag that he said he wondered about because no link had been provided.
What is your objection?
Why are you always on my case?
What has "anti-Semitism slurs" to do with anything?

You are just trying to stir up shit and cause trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Jul 17 - 06:44 AM

In fairness to the professor it was his attack dog who first raised this.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jul 17 - 06:20 AM

Is this really the best you can come up with, Keith? Wassamatter? Run out of antisemitism slurs, have we?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Jul 17 - 05:20 AM

For those who don't see the spin, here is a clip from the Sun's article in the first link (the address is missing a leading 'h')

"Last night the new members of the committee vowed to hold her more accountable for her actions.

Roy Bentham, who booted out a Liverpool council cabinet member from his spot on the committee, told the Liverpool Echo: "Luciana needs to get on board quite quickly now."

Do I need to draw people's attention to how ONE person has been translated into several?

Remember the other committee members disassociated themselves from the comments the individual made.

(Also Roy didn't "boot out" anyone, any more that any person elected "boots out" their predecessor.)

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 10:37 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.