BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jan 17 - 02:57 PM

"Then quote me, liar."
I assume this is a cross posting
I don't expect an apology
JUsyave done both on this and the Theresa May thread
I is you who have lied consistently on both counts
Now will you piss off?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jan 17 - 12:45 PM

Jim,
Finished here Keith - you claimed what I said

Then quote me, liar.

and you deny Farage's racism

Then quote me, liar.

Farage may well be a racist, in which case I share your contempt for the man.
I just need to see some actual evidence, and none of you can find any.

Dave,
Don't worry, Jim. The thread may have long gone but enough people remember it.

You were a major contributor to that thread Dave, but you found nothing from me to criticise at the time.

My only case on that thread was that there was an over-representation, not why.
Read it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jan 17 - 12:40 PM

This, from a debate on the causes of "massive over-representation of Muslims" in sexual crimes against underage young women in Britain
You may check the context on the "Muslim prejudice" thread.
I trust these are Keith's posts and that the Russians haven't hacked this website
Jim Carroll


Muslim Prejudice thread.
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 07:10 AM

Don, no one on this thread has claimed any of those things.

Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb.

Do you dismiss all that just because it does not fit your preconceptions, or do you have some powerful evidence to the contrary that you have not shared with us

Later
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 02:11 PM
I find it hard to understand your reluctance.
I have restated my case many times, and will do it again if anyone asks.
Alan, you have been following the debate.
Are you clear why Lox is certain there can be no cultural cause?
Lizzie?

Later
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 02:48 PM
I was just hoping that if no one else knows why you can not accept a cultural cause either, you might remind us.
You have said that you do not accept that there is a distinct BP culture.
Is that it?
You would not want to risk ridicule by saying that again.
Does anyone here know why Lox rejects a cultural explanation?
Dave, you have been more than fair in you comments on this debate.
Do you know?

Later
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 04:29 PM
"And Alan - by definition, a hypothesis which discriminates solely on the base of race/culture and which deliberately excludes all other factors is a racist hypothesis."
So, if we think that culture might be the explanation for the massive over representation, we must unthink it, because it is "racist."
No theorising is permissable, or you are a racist.
Stop the debate, or be guilty of racism.
You must not even imagine such a thing.
Quite liberal Lox.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jan 17 - 12:10 PM

I'm sure they do, including Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jan 17 - 12:05 PM

Don't worry, Jim. The thread may have long gone but enough people remember it.

D,

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jan 17 - 12:00 PM

"you have put up no evidence, only your views of what was said and what occurred."
I have been putting it up since he said it - it as one of the most blatant pieces of racism anybody has put up on this forum
Whenever I mantioned it, he denied saying it, then he said he only said it becase somebody else did - an immediate admission of his lying
He has at no time ever given an example of anybody saying anything approaching such a serious charge against an entire race
He said that he believes "I now believe" that Muslim culture inclines all Pakistani males to desire sex with underage girls - that is statutory rape in Britain - that is what he claimed.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Jan 17 - 09:23 AM

Wrong Jim..... you have put up no evidence, only your views of what was said and what occurred.

If there was any evidence I would not be defending him.....nor I am sure would Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jan 17 - 09:17 AM

Finished here Keith - you claimed what I said and you deny Farage's racism
You have consistently claimed nobody has put up proof - that is another lie and another example of your defending racism
Stop calling me a liar and move on
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jan 17 - 08:47 AM

Jim,
There you go again - first denying you said it, then saying you only said it because somebody told you it was true - make up your mind.

I deny saying what you claim.
I deny it was my opinion. I always acknowledged that I had no knowledge on which to base such an opinion.

Everyone is influenced to some extent by their culture.
All those people ascribed the offending to that culture.
I know nothing about that culture, so after dredging up a six year old debate, it contains nothing to justify your smear.

The fact that you still defend it is indicative that you still believe it to be true, which makes you a racist.

I do not defend it, but nothing has come to light to change the fact or give reason to stop believing them all.
Most of those quoted were of that culture so it is certainly not racist.

It is little wonder you spend so much time and effort defending Farage's racism.

Another lie Jim. You will never produce a quote of me defending any racism.
All I did was ask you to justify the accusation, and you could not.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jan 17 - 05:16 AM

"Well if you actually quote verbatim what Keith A originally posted as opposed to what you think"
I've posted the quote, I've posted the whole posting, I've posred the quotes surrounding his posting and I've linked to the thread - dozens of times - it's my favourite quote on the forum.
Each time he starts out denying he said it, then saying he only believes it because somebody said it was true AS HE HAS DONE HERE
He has never at any time produced a public figure that has ever claimed a cultural implant to rape young women in all Pakistani males - not ever.
It would be illegal for any public figure to make such a statement publicly and anybody in the public eye would lose any position they held if they did so.
If you think I have it wrong, go find it and put me right, If you believe what he said - say so
You claim I have it wrong - again - you will not show my having done so - again
You are nothing, if not predictable
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jan 17 - 02:09 AM

Jim Carroll - 11 Jan 17 - 10:49 AM

"No public figure has ever said that all British Pakistani males were culturally implanted to have sex with underage girls - that was all your own work - you never reproduced anybody saying it, if they had said it it would have been liable to prosecution under the incitement to race hatred laws and whoever said such a thing is a racist, whether they are repeating something somebody told them or not."

Well if you actually quote verbatim what Keith A originally posted as opposed to what you think, or wish, he had said you will find that Keith A did give three sources quoting exactly what they had said, all those sources were members of Britain's Asian community with every right to express their views on a crime that at the time was, and still is, considered to be horrific in scale and in nature. Keith A merely quoted those sources and asked the question if anyone agreed with THEIR conclusions. You as usual got hold of the wrong end of the stick and have been worrying it like a terrier with a rag ever since - just one of your many "hobby-horses".

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jan 17 - 10:49 AM

"Or did I just say that I believed them because they were in a position to know, as with a doctor or a weather forecaster?"
There you go again - first denying you said it, then saying you only said it because somebody told you it was true - make up your mind.
No public figure has ever said that all British Pakistani makes were culturally implanted to have sex with underage girls - that was all your own work - you never reproduced anybody saying it, if they had said it it would have been liable to prosecution under the incitement to race hatred laws and whoever said such a thing is a racist, whether they are repeating something somebody told them or not.
The fact that you still defend it is indicative that you still believe it to be true, which makes you a racist.
It is little wonder you spend so much time and effort defending Farage's racism.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jan 17 - 10:36 AM

You have not given one Jim.
you have said you only did so because somebody told you it was true

Did I?
Or did I just say that I believed them because they were in a position to know, as with a doctor or a weather forecaster?
Did I admit to not knowing anything about the issue myself?
Was it their opinion and not mine?

If so, how does that justify your accusation that I "set out deliberately to make immigrants a threat to our way of life, our safety and our children's safety in particulat -"

It does not. And you had to dredge up a six year old discussion and quote me out of context even then!

Will you produce an actual quote of me suggesting any such thing?
No, because there are none.
Just nasty smearing lies from a serial liar.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jan 17 - 06:50 AM

"Will you produce an actual quote of me suggesting any such thing?"
Done so enough times to make it pointless doing so again
Each time I have you have said you only did so because somebody told you it was true
C'mon Keith - you asked for an example - you got it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jan 17 - 05:37 AM

No.
Will you produce an actual quote of me suggesting any such thing?
No, because there are none.
Just nasty smearing lies from a serial liar.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jan 17 - 05:24 AM

"Will you produce an actual quote of me suggesting any such thing?"
Will "cultural implants" do? - suppose not!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jan 17 - 04:45 AM

Jim,

No - instead, he has set out deliberately to make immigrants a threat to our way of life, our safety and our children's safety in particulat - far, far worse.

It would be if it was true, but you are just making up shit to smear me again because you can not argue against anything I really say.

Will you produce an actual quote of me suggesting any such thing?
No, because there are none.
Just nasty smearing lies from a serial liar.

GSS, I have answered your points on the Theresa thread because the Farage discussion took place there.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jan 17 - 04:01 AM

"Keith has never advocated stopping immigration or racism of any kind."
No - instead, he has set out deliberately to make immigrants a threat to our way of life, our safety and our children's safety in particulat - far, far worse.
You have shared many of his views and taken it a step further and have insisted that there is nothing wrong with making them using identification insignia and have their homes be identifiable - a real "Brave New World"
Immigrants have been a benefit to our society and our way of life - they have shown themselves prepared to integrate, they are, by and large, law abiding and industrious, their children tend to do well in schools, and for those who are prepared to listen, they are fine examples of the fact that the planet is now the sole domain of W.A.S.Ps any more
It is those that refuse to accept strangers into our midst that is the problem, not the strangers.
Despite claims to the contrary, Corbyn has not changed his position, he has merely clarified it to combat those who would misuse it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jan 17 - 06:13 PM

"As I have said on numerous occasions, the playing field is not level, most of the young male immigrants arriving here can live much more cheaply than a young British couple and can send money home where its value is many times than it is here."

As far as EU countries are concerned this is a blatant untruth. There is no EU country where the cost of living is many times less than here. Speaking of money leaving the country, I would also ask why you don't castigate billionaires who send their money offshore in order to avoid tax, or who live as non-doms for the same reason. What they rob this country of in tax revenue outstrips by a very large multiple any small amounts which are quite legitimately, with no intention of tax avoidance, sent to families outside the UK by people who are genuinely here to work. I haven't the energy to take on the rest of the complete bollocks in your post. I suppose that by bringing up a "proper family" you're not talking about same-sex couples, but hey ho.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jan 17 - 05:46 PM

Don....if you are trying to be ironic, I would suggest some lessons from the experts. Mr McGrath is an excellent exponent, others are less overt. :0)

Good irony should give the victim a nice warm glow, before the onset of Rigor Mortise.   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jan 17 - 05:36 PM

Good Soldier, I think you are being extremely unfair to Keith.
Keith has never advocated stopping immigration or racism of any kind.
Of course we need immigration, but it must be on our terms, we need control over numbers and status of immigrants.

Surely you cannot believe that we can accept the present numbers for ever? As I have said on numerous occasions, the playing field is not level, most of the young male immigrants arriving here can live much more cheaply than a young British couple and can send money home where its value is many times than it is here.

Additionally the infrastructure of the immigrant's own country is being adversely affected by the loss of a young working age population. Who do you think is going to run public services, build houses and teach pupils in Poland and other eastern European countries?
I see no rush of young Brits to work in Eastern Europe.....why do you think this is the case?

When Free Movement is halted there must be compulsory training introduced to allow our young people the chance of a proper life with proper wages and a proper house in which to bring up a proper family.

An empty life on derisory benefits should not be an option, it is a real crime against humanity.

Back to basics, I also agree with the idea of closing the wealth gap, but given the current economic system this will be extremely difficult to implement.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: The Sandman
Date: 10 Jan 17 - 04:59 PM

"Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 10 Jan 17 - 04:48 AM

Don't respond Steve - that way lies madness

Because you can not challenge a word I have said, so better hide."
Keith I have met you in person and I have no desire to fall out with you, but I cannot accept your response when i challenged you about Farages xenophobia, I produced a copy and paste of a report of a speech Farage made in Grimsby.
your response was laughable, you resorted to trying to undermine the contents by asking if the student   was out of their teens.
Throughout this thread I have stated that not everyone who voted to leave was a racist but it is clear that Farage has used the race issue to win votes,
your comment "was the student out of his teens" insults those people who are 18 or 19 who are considered by the government old enough and responsible enough to vote legally.
when someone does respond to you politely, and you are clearly caught out you still will not admit you are wrong, so what is the point of anyone responding to you.
THE STUDENT IN QUESTION WAS IN HIS FINAL YEAR OF A BA HONS DEGREE, that means he is considered old enough and responsible enough top vote.14 March 2016       · by European Student Think Tank       · in ambassadors, articles and blogs, EU Foreign Policy, EU Policy Process, Eurocrisis, European Integration, Geen categorie, ISIS, Migration, Religion.       ·
By Matt Evans, British EST Ambassador. Matt is a final year BA (hons) History and Politics student at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, UK.

16486626570_7f070e3bc4_o

The upcoming June referendum on whether Britain should remain a member of the European Union has once again increased the media's interest in the UK Independence Party, commonly known as UKIP. UKIP, formed in 1993 as a response to increasing European integration, are generally viewed as to the right on the political spectrum of the governing Conservative Party, advocating British withdrawal from the European Union and an end to what they view as "uncontrolled immigration".[1] Under the leadership of the charismatic but divisive Nigel Farage, the party has enjoyed recent electoral success, gaining the most seats and votes in the 2014 European Parliament election, marking the first time since 1910 that a party other than Labour and the Conservatives won the largest number of seats in a national election.[2] This article looks at a speech delivered by leader Farage when campaigning for UKIP in the 2015 UK General Election.

            As a part of the general election campaign the infamous Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party, went to Grimsby Town Hall and urged the residents of Grimsby to vote for Victoria Ayling, a local councillor, as their next Member of Parliament[3]. This speech exemplifies a large part of Great Britain's scepticism towards the European Union. Given the situation as it was the general election and Farage was holding a speech in a town known for its fishing, it can be argued that he attempted to ignite a nostalgic and nationalist fire in Grimsby. He begins his speech by stating: "Grimsby used to be a great place"[4]. Already here, Farage is presenting a problem in the United Kingdom namely its lack of sovereignty. It can be argued that this problem is the overarching theme on Farage's agenda since, in his view, it is the root for the sinking fishing industry in Grimsby because of the Common Fisheries Policy, Great Britain's declining living conditions due to the Open Door Policy and the British debt due to the European Union membership.

            Farage gives a historical background of why Great Britain's sovereignty has declined according to his own view, which gives his audience an overview and general knowledge of the problem that Great Britain is currently in. Moreover, it is revealing that Farage had an understanding for his audience. This can be seen, for example, by his focus on the famous fishing industry in Grimsby which illustrates that the speech had a particular audience but also his aggressive quote that "Tony Blair can go to hell"[5] which was received by applause of the audience. He even says sarcastically that he misread the audience when he first mentions Tony Blair, indicating that he knows the audience.

First of all, by igniting the nostalgic and nationalistic fire in the audience, he manages to use the argumentative appeal of pathos. This can be tied into Aristotle's notion of emotions since Farage sparks dissatisfaction or even anger in the audience where Aristotle argues that if an item has importance, people will eventually get angry[6]. In this case, Farage is able to present a broken Great Britain and acknowledge it, which the residents of Grimsby are attached to. This indicates that the residents of Grimsby find an importance in Great Britain. Farage is able to direct that frustration and anger, and pinpoint the lack of sovereignty as the fundamental problem. This use of pathos can be considered rather successful since Farage's aim is convince the residents of Grimsby to vote for Ayling because belief and action are intertwined, according to Aristotle[7], and thus by making that certain belief a constituent part of emotion, Farage is able to gain more votes for UKIP.

            Another argumentative appeal is ethos, which he is able to portray through his view of Europe. By claiming that he is not against Europe as countries and people and that he, in fact, likes Europe, Farage is able to illustrate to the public that he is a concerned man of Great Britain rather than a fearful or discriminating man of Europe. In addition, he also presents himself as a moral character by telling the audience that the other politicians have been abusing him due to UKIP's "sensible" policies as he puts it[8].

            The last argumentative appeal is logos where Farage appeals to the rationality of the voters in Grimsby. This is illustrated when he makes the case that Great Britain should become like Norway and Iceland who have a booming fishing industry and are not a part of the European Union. Also, by giving a historical background of Great Britain's ties with the European Union, he also appeals to the rationality of the audience since they see a chronological timeline of the developing problem in Great Britain.

Farage uses contradictions in order to portray his policies as appealing. This can be exemplified by his view that controlling the borders of the United Kingdom "immigration once again becomes a positive in our country and not a negative"[9]. By using juxtapositions, Farage is able to make the audience differentiate between UKIP and the other parties, making UKIP more appealing to voters. It is also seen that Farage uses examples as inductions such as his argument for an increase in the defence budget that he compares to house insurance and the comparison that British debt is like maxing out a credit card. At the end of the speech, Farage states that he doesn't want to sell out nor have a ministerial car but rather wants to "drive the agenda of British politics the next five years"[10]. Here, an odd metaphor is applied in order to contrast what politicians want compared to what Farage want to do if elected but since it is the first metaphor that Farage uses in the speech, it also emphasises his goal of influencing British politics.

The hostility towards the European Union that Farage represents sums up the split in Great Britain. The latest opinion poll by Comres suggests that 49% of Britons want to remain in the EU whereas 41% wants to leave[11]. By analysing a speech by one of the leading figures of the British euroscepticism, we can clearly see that the charismatic Farage is able to adapt his rhetoric to different situations and the issues he touches upon are strong entities of British nationalism. Whether you agree with him or not, "[R]hetoric proves crucial when it comes to invoking discourses in the audience conducive to the claim made by the representative, and downplaying competing discourses"[12] and this is fundamental to the democratic ideals that Great Britain but also the European Union represent. Thus, it is important to acknowledge euroscepticism as a part of British political discourse since it illustrates the antagonism of views in British society.

All in all, Farage focuses on the particular audience by his examples and comparisons that are specific to the people in Grimsby, which helps igniting the nostalgic and nationalistic fire in Grimsby. Hence, the speech can be considered to be successful since it convinces the audience that the sole problem of British politics is its lack of sovereignty and UKIP can provide the solution to make Grimsby a thriving fishing town again.

[1] UKIP Manifesto 2015 "Immigration" p.10

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jan 17 - 04:09 PM

Has anyone on here actually heard or read the speech? From some of the comments above I would guess not. I found it rather disappointing in that he was rather non committal on a number of issues including immigration. Seems he is beginning to learn politics!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Jan 17 - 03:25 PM

There are means to manage and monitor immigrants. There are books about it. One can make immigrant shops obvious to the public with symbols. Special schools only for immigrants. Special purity laws and employment rules. Dynamic work complexes with security gates. The cheap labor there would enrich investors. Last but not least, special passport restrictions and exit fees and laws would make a profit.

No outsider would run toward a freedom that imprisons immigrants for getting in and getting out.

Sorry I think I over excited Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jan 17 - 02:14 PM

"Immigrants make a net contribution to this country."
Of course they do, and that's official
You cant be heard above the stamp of jackboots Steve
First these people claimed it has=d nothing to do with immigration, now it's about nothing else.
They refuse to even acknowledge the growing shambles.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jan 17 - 01:22 PM

if only Mr Corbyn had the balls to advocate opposing "free movement" before the referendum we could have saved our "liberal" friends much tear shedding and hand wringing.

Never mind, all's well that ends well as they say. The sad Democrats in the UK san use this as a template....."liberalism" does NOT rule the world, neither is it a progressive policy.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jan 17 - 12:10 PM

than from within

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jan 17 - 12:10 PM

You can propose what you like. Immigrants make a net contribution to this country. More migrants come here from outside the EU from from within, which we have full control over, but we don't control it. We need the immigrants to work. If we didn't need them there would be hundreds of thousands of them out of work, but there aren't, and, pro rata, far fewer migrants claim benefits than UK nationals do. We do not train enough people for much of the skilled workforce that we need, let alone have enough people willing to do the essential menial tasks in hospitals, care homes and in agriculture. We are going to be ditched out of the single market, yet still have immigration in the hundreds of thousands for many years to come. The Tories have initiated a cock-up of the highest order.   Cameron's staggering incompetence and shortsightedness has doomed this country.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 10 Jan 17 - 11:53 AM

It sounds like what Ake has been proposing all along - managing immigration rather than having an open door policy.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jan 17 - 07:28 AM

As ever, just reporting the headlines does not give the full picture. If we look a little deeper we find actual quotes like

"Labour is not wedded to freedom of movement for EU citizens as a point of principle. But nor can we afford to lose full access to the European single market on which so many British businesses and jobs depend. Changes to the way migration rules operate from the EU will be part of the negotiations," he will say.

"Labour supports fair rules and reasonably managed migration as part of the post-Brexit relationship with the EU."

Corbyn will also say, however, that there will be no "false promises on immigration" and that his party will not echo the Conservatives by promising to bring the numbers down to the tens of thousands.

Instead, he will repeat an argument that action against the undercutting of pay and conditions, closing down labour loopholes and banning jobs being exclusively advertised abroad could bring down the amount of people travelling to the UK.

"That would have the effect of reducing numbers of EU migrant workers in the most deregulated sectors, regardless of the final Brexit deal," he will say.

Feel free to look up the rest of the speech yourselves rather than take the word of anyone here as to what it all means.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jan 17 - 06:57 AM

Well as I was saying yesterday that I was disappointed in Mr Corbyn's EU stance, I am pleased to see today that he must read Mudcat threads, as he has come out against "free movement of labour".
I hope he also takes on board my advise on forthcoming elections and concentrates on building a socialist movement.

Where this leaves our Mudcat quasi socialists I don't quite know, but using the sinking "liberal" ship analogy they must be very close to the top of the mainmast, but only a few inches above the waves   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jan 17 - 04:48 AM

Don't respond Steve - that way lies madness

Because you can not challenge a word I have said, so better hide.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 17 - 01:47 PM

Can't, Jim. I'm halfway through doing my bacon and three-bean risotto. Only way I can persuade Mrs Steve to let me open a bottle on Mondays....

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jan 17 - 01:09 PM

Don't respond Steve - that way lies madness
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jan 17 - 12:49 PM

Steve,
The only party whose "immigration policy" is clear is the one you have spent weeks doughtily defending, Keith, the racist UKIP

I remind you that you have failed to show that UKIP are racist, so just name calling again Steve.
And I have not defended them. I just asked you to back your claims about them.
You couldn't.

All four main parties are committed to reducing immigration, including Labour before Corbyn.
Maybe it still is Labour policy, or maybe not.
Who knows?
Not the Deputy Leader anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 17 - 10:13 AM

they are

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 17 - 10:11 AM

Well I actually support the aims of the SNP, Allan. As I say, though, that are in tactical limbo at the moment, desperate to get independence but knowing they can't win another referendum. They are in no position to get a different and more favourable brexit deal than anyone else but all they can do is make threatening noises.

The only party whose "immigration policy" is clear is the one you have spent weeks doughtily defending, Keith, the racist UKIP. The Tories are all over the shop with their confused take on the single market vs open borders, as with everything else to do with brexit, so don't try to come that one. And, my word, hasn't their policy been successful so far! "Down to the tens of thousands" my arse. Go on, blame the LibDems! 😂We all know that your mission in life is to punch holes in Labour at every opportunity. Well no-one important is listening to you, Keith. You are spent. Yesterday's man.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Allan Conn
Date: 09 Jan 17 - 09:02 AM

Steve whatever one's thoughts on Scottish independence are, and I have no wish to go down that argument again on here, it is simply wrong to suggest that the SNP are being opertunistic over this issue. They are balancing the mandate they got from their own voters at the last Scottish and Westminster elections with the outcome of the last indie referendum and with the clear vote within Scotland to stay in the EU but throughout they have been consistent despite what sections of the media say.

At the indepedence election one of the main planks of the unionist argument was that only by staying within the UK can Scotland guarantee its place in the EU. The SNP at the last Scottish elections which was before the EU vote stated in their manifesto that although their long term aim is indepedence the election itself was not about that. It clearly states that they would only look towards another independence vote if one of two things happened. Either it became evident that a "clear majority" of the Scottish electorate wanted independence or if there was a significant material change. And the example it gives in the manifesto as a material change was if Scotland is taken out of the EU against the will of the Scottish voters. Many people might not like that but that is the manifesto that gave them victory in the Scottish elections. To now ignore that commitment would mean that Sturgeon is just another politician who breaks their election promises.

That is why they have put are putting in place legislation to hold a referendum if it comes to that. However rather than rushing to another vote (which she probably wouldn't want in the short term as the polls are pretty much as they were on the indie vote day) they have said that if there is a so called soft-Brexit, or even if Scotland's place within the single market can be secured even if the UK as a whole has a hard Brexit, then there would not be another vote in the short term. Whether an agreement to that could ever be met is another thing of course but the main point is that she is sticking to her election pledge to her own supporters whilst at the same time at least attempting to find some solution within the UK without the need for another indie vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Jan 17 - 08:01 AM

I agree Keith, Mr Corbyn has boxed himself into the same corner as our friends on the left here in Mudcat. He is allowing himself to be ruled by ideology rather than be honest with himself.
He has always opposed the EU but thought there might be some political advantage of being on what he supposed to be the winning side in the EU referendum.
To me he has been disappointing in that respect.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jan 17 - 07:27 AM

Steve, do people even know what he and Labour stand for?
Guardian yesterday,
Tom Watson, Labour's deputy leader, has effectively admitted that the party does not have a clear immigration policy, saying it was "unfair" to expect the party to have one when the government's own position on the issue was so vague.
In an interview with Sophy Ridge on Sunday on Sky News, he indicated his own personal support for abandoning the commitment to free movement for EU citizens, arguing: "For the Labour party what we can't support is the status quo."
But, despite being asked five times, he refused to confirm that the party as a whole had given up defending EU free movement. When pushed, he told Ridge: "It's unfair of you to ask what Labour's notional position is when we don't even know what Theresa May's negotiating position is on free movement.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 17 - 07:09 AM

Corbyn IS a good guy and I'd vote for him again tomorrow. He has more integrity in his little finger than all the Tory and most of the Labour parliamentary parties combined. But he's doomed because he doesn't fit into the current political hegemony in this country. He is the most unpopulist person in this world of populist, soundbite, megaphone, race-to-the-bottom politics and he isn't going to change (thankfully). The worry is that the two-time losing big-hitters of the past will regain the reins. There would be no more chance of any of them guiding Labour to victory than if Jeremy stayed in post. I'm too much of a dyed-in-the-wool leftie to cheerfully advocate what has been clumsily called a progressive coalition. I can't stand the LibDems and regarded their deserved near-obliteration as the only good outcome of the last election. The SNP are waiting-in-the-wings opportunists who are currently drowning in tactics rather than clear policy and the Greens are just nowhere. It may be the only way, though. Brexit is an unmitigated disaster and May will come out of it very badly, so who knows?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Jan 17 - 09:33 PM

Gentlemen: I received a complaint about this thread, so I took a look. The most recent part is filled with petty personal squabbles. I deleted thirty or so of the most recent posts, but there's still too much crap here to bother doing housecleaning.
Cut it out. It's boring. Get back on topic, or we'll have to close the thread.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Jan 17 - 07:55 PM

Anyway Corbyn sounds like a good guy to me but I know no details.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Jan 17 - 05:24 PM

I am afraid of what has crept into the box.

A deep penetrating anger and fear of terrorism, extremism and blind tribal reactionism. Not enough to effect routine but still effect interactions.

It is of course irrational. It would be more rational to fear the causes of heart disease or cancer.

There is a blunt wisdom of fighting fire with fire. I have been thinking about a process of fighting crazy with crazy. Some of us know the crazy projects of D ARP A to make the ultimate gun, the ultimate camouflage and ultimate soldier. Unlike the military my idea involves the dissolution of civil rights too, but not all the way to death or permanent injury. The idea is not entirely new but best left unsaid. For the idea please send me 50 million dollars in Krugerrands.



I wonder if it was Rap who said "the creepy cat crept into the crypt, crapped and crept out again."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jan 17 - 04:44 PM

What would you know, Iains? Just showing up for a quick snipe? That technique is lifted perfectly out of bobad's book.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 08 Jan 17 - 02:30 PM

The cat can be both alive and dead, but preferably the latter if associated with this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jan 17 - 01:49 PM

But, if we can see outside the box, does the cat still exist?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Jan 17 - 01:42 PM

Jim you have thicker skin than Trump. You thought you had a hard time understanding my point of view but it took me weeks to understand where you were coming from. The whole time I was leery of your underlying motives.. We all have specific unique talents expertise and experiences. I believe you can make a more innovative approach to inform and most importantly find potential solutions to conflict. Maybe you prefer the attention of this anti-anti Semitic attack mode. I bet some people don't get it. Repetition won't help them.

I have sometimes seen spiteful comments , barbs and accusations in Parliament. Everyone there has an agenda, axes to grind and 3rd party promises to keep. In the microcosm of mudcat it is possible to do something better than repeat an archaic process.

There are people who NEVER can see outside the box but are still useful. Those people are trapped inside the box. Don't get trapped.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jan 17 - 12:49 PM

Don't understand a word of that Donuel?
Want to slim int down to readable English?
I suggest that if you were the target of the constant accusation of Anrisemitism you might think twice about letting Bobad be Bobad.
That you like or dislike him is down to your taste and nothing to do with what he is, à chacun son goût", as they say.
His viciousness far exceeds anything I have ever encountered and breaches one of the conditions we were all presented with on joining.
I joined up to discuss topics that interest me - I am neither interested in or qualified to deal with disfuncional children
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jan 17 - 12:30 PM

Let play not resume. Or, at least, not without a red card.