BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 07:02 AM

They certainly do. The Telegraph, Daily Mail and Sun all ran plenty of stuff that was very hostile to David Cameron.
.....

I think this thread is vvery much in danger of slipping into the pattern of slapdash pointless personal abuse that marred the other thread about Labour, and led me to start this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 06:24 AM

So it is not enough for a paper to support Labour, it has to support the correct faction!
Other Parties do not have that problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 06:14 AM

"The Mirror is a Labour supporting Paper and always has been."
The Mirror is a supporter of the established Labour right-wing
There is a leadership battle between left and right at the present time.
Work it out for yourself.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 05:43 AM

The online article is the same as the one they printed.

Perhaps. The online article appears, as I say, to be Mirror staff commentary followed by something McDonnell wrote. It may be that the printed version uses fonts or background to make it clearer that these are separate things, or to show where one starts and the other stops even if the text is identical (which I don't know either, but am prepared to take your word for.)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 05:29 AM

Interesting to read in this morning's Times business section that Virgin has failed to prevent its competitors from introducing low cost fares on the London to Edinburgh route, but has been granted the right to appeal the decision
A company that really cares about its customers, eh?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 05:23 AM

The Mirror is a Labour supporting Paper and always has been.
The online article is the same as the one they printed.

McDonnell makes it clear he believes that tax dodgers such as Branson should have no say in State affairs

He should not, and does not.
All he did was defend his train company against Corbyn's lie that he had to sit on the floor because there were no seats when there were seats.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 05:20 AM

Oh where to start ?

Both of you provide so many examples, of which the other protagonists are so well aware, it's difficult to pick one in particular.

Oh course you will deny that you have EVER made false claims because that's what people like you with little education do. They don't believe anyone will remember.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 05:14 AM

" I asked you what they were, why no answer? "
Why should anybody who never gives proof and never repies toquestions get an answer on anything
Tell yuo what - you respond to the remarks on overcrowding made by the Virgin executive - and all the other points I've made in my last few postings and maybe- just maybe, I'll bother my arse by replying to an establishment arselicker
Your defence of the super-rich really is touching
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 04:53 AM

Raggytash - 29 Aug 16 - 04:14 AM

Well no Raggy it doesn't unless of course you can provide any examples of me having done so.

Jom you mentioned something called the "Rights of the Taxpayer" I asked you what they were, why no answer? Could it be that in reality there aren't any that don't apply to anyone? Or in other word words you high dudgeon and indignation are based on a false premise and that you are talking out of your arse as usual.

Corbyn made a complete and utter idiot of himself and was caught on camera doing it - no need to worry it will not be the last time he will do it.

By the way where is your proof that Virgin Group has not paid any taxes?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 04:40 AM

"Tell us all Jom, what are the "Rights of a Taxpayer" when they are at home?"
Piss of - you clownYou totally ignore the misrepresentations that you have admitted politicians are prone to, yet you throw a hissy fit when a multi- billionaire tax dodger is questioned
Life would be much rosier if you took your nose out of the arses of the wealthy
You have the truth of the "false depictions"
- you choose to ignore them too
Not very good at this, are you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 04:14 AM

"goes out of his way to falsely depict and portray conditions that do not exist then by any standards that man is lying to the public and should be ridiculed and censured for it"

This of course doesn't apply to Teribus and Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 04:03 AM

Tell us all Jom, what are the "Rights of a Taxpayer" when they are at home?

Do you have to prove that you have paid taxes in order to voice an opinion? When did that come into being.

Virgin Group, the holding company for all of Branson's 400 different business ventures is located in London therefore liable to UK Tax on it's profits

That Richard Branson eh what a bastard he provides employment for 50,000 people who all seem to like working for him and who all, I presume, pay tax and for whom their employers pay N.I. or equivalent, what a dead beat eh Jom what a drain on our resources.

Basically Jom I couldn't give a toss what your experiences of travelling on any mode of transport are. But when a politician goes out of his way to falsely depict and portray conditions that do not exist then by any standards that man is lying to the public and should be ridiculed and censured for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 03:39 AM

Sorry - forgot the link, in case Teribus attempts to pass off the facts as
"MORE MADE-UP CARROLL SHIT"
Makes interesting reading
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 03:25 AM

"And he and those who work for him and 100% entitled to defend the company they work for when blatant lies are reported "
He has the right of a taxpayer - whoops - he isn't one of those, is he?
Otherwise, he has no rights other than those afforded by law.
He milks the country for profit and has not paid taxes on those profits for over three years, just as many, many others of his ilk.
He has a knighthood for 'services' to Britain yet takes far more out of it than the "scroungers" you people have targeted - his knighthood needs to be questioned.
Are the claims made about Virgin Trains blatant lies?
Not in my experience.
It would be a neglect of duty for any leading politician not to draw attention to the conditions in which people travel - it's refreshing when a politican does his job.
This thread has become a microcosm of what is happening in Britain at large - Labour has the making of a half-decent leader wo could possibly provide an opposition to the mess the country is in - the press, the state machine and its lackeys are on him like a pack of jackals - Antisemitism, incompetence, unelctability (if that made the slightest difference to the rest of us), misogyny - and now a politician "telling lies" - horrors of horrors - that has long been part of the job description of a place in Westminster and has come to be expected
REMEMBER THIS ONE?
That campaign not only led to a Government which produced a massive rise in unemployment, but produced an administration which was the nearest we have ever had to a Fascist-led country which impoverished millions, took away our rights to a say in our work and decimated British industry.
Where was the outcry by our 'democratic' press when that lie was told?
"PR stunts' - if that's what Corbyn is about, he's still in his infancy among the masters of the art.
Branson's trains are overcrowded - what a nasty, unwarranted thing to say to a multi-billionaire!!!!
TSK-TSK
An E-mail from a Virgin executive.
"However, leaked emails reveal that the managing director of Virgin Trains East Coast told staff that the controversy had highlighted how crowded services can be, and that finding seats could make customers anxious and stressed.
David Horne also admitted having to stand by a customer toilet for a journey of approximately 130 miles, from Newark to London. He said that was during Virgin's " hot seat week", when directors and managers are banned from travelling in first class in order to "take a hard look at our standard class offer".
On Friday, he wrote: "Putting politics aside, this incident demonstrates just how busy many of our services are, those in the middle of the day as well as at peak times."
Methinks, the lady doth protest too much, me little Teribusum!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 03:03 AM

Correct Teribus, but a "storm in a teacup" surely.....could we not get back to a discussion of the Labour Party and what, if any, future it has?
Seems to me there are political movements at work all over the world.
Interesting times.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 01:33 AM

As far as I am aware Sir Richard Branson has no say in State Affairs.

But would like to add that he, like everybody else, is entitled to an opinion.

And he and those who work for him and 100% entitled to defend the company they work for when blatant lies are reported about the service they provide based upon an idiotic and totally inept PR stunt that went spectacularly wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Aug 16 - 05:22 PM

You're wasting your time talking to a closed mind lads - first antisemitism, then misogyny... yayya, yattata -
Child abuse next, no doubt
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Aug 16 - 05:16 PM

And it IS the Mirror, fer chrissake. Bumwipe incorporated.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Aug 16 - 04:56 PM

The onlinearticle needs careful reading, Keith, but it APPEARS to me to be a commentary written by the Mirror staff and then some paragraphs by Labour. And there is nothing in the Labour text to directly support the headline: it is all supposition about what John M really meant but wasn't saying.

But as I said I haven't seen the original, so I could be wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Aug 16 - 04:53 PM

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Look it up, Keith. Logical fallacies are your stock in trade, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Aug 16 - 04:53 PM

No Keith
McDonnell makes it clear he believes that tax dodgers such as Branson should have no say in State affairs
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/28/john-mcdonnell-richard-branson-stripped-of-knighthood-traingate
He also targets freeloaders like Sir Phillip Green
As far as I'm concerned, Corbyn was quite right anytway - I've travelled on one of Branson's cattle trucks and have found them appallingly overcrowded.
Their excuse is that there aren't enough trains - maybe Branson can afford to put on a few more out of the taxes he doesn't pay!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Aug 16 - 04:37 PM

Not true Jim.
Here is the Mirror headline,
"Labour calls for Richard Branson to be STRIPPED of his knighthood after Jeremy Corbyn Traingate row"

Here are the opening two sentences,
"Labour is calling for Richard Branson to be stripped of his knighthood following his bid to humiliate Jeremy Corbyn over Traingate.

Writing exclusively in the Sunday Mirror, Shadow Chancellor John ­McDonnell slams the Virgin billionaire as a "tax exile who thinks he can try and intervene and ­undermine our democracy"."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Aug 16 - 03:31 PM

"The actual reason being that he exposed "The Leader" as a liar and made him look a complete and utter prat."
Do you think he's going to share that one with the rest of us - you're certainly no - you don't do that sort of thing!!
In fact, the truth of the matter is that the call was made because Branson, as one of Britain's super-rich has, after making his money in Britain, done a runner in order not to pay taxes to the country that has made him rich.
"'It should be a simple choice for the mega-rich. Run off to tax exile if you want. But you leave your titles and your honours behind when you go,' says Mr McDonnell"
Not a thing that bothers State arse-licking "patriots" like yourself
Rule Britannia, as long as wwe don't have to pay for her upkeep - eh what!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Aug 16 - 03:26 PM

You are right, Kevin, and in only mirror article I can find on the subject has he is talking about Sir Philip Green and BHS. I didn't buy the Sunday mirror and so haven't seen the original, but would have expected to see a more direct reference to Branson in the online if it was there.


But that doesn't alter the fact that they need to be much more media-savvy. They need to at least ask themselves as a matter of habit "how will the media interpret this" and even if the talk was entirely about Green it is obvious the media would say it is about Branson really.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Aug 16 - 02:24 PM

What McDonnell seems to have been saying that a systen that gives honours to tax exiles like Branson needs to be scrapped, or radically overhauled. Who can disagree with that? Though in the light of Sir Jimmy Saville, why should anyone see a knighthood as an honour they wish to receive?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Aug 16 - 12:03 PM

However you look at it, John McDonnell was pretty silly to say anything that could be interpreted like that now.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Aug 16 - 11:24 AM

I see that the Labour Party is calling for Sir Richard Branson to be stripped of his knighthood. The actual reason being that he exposed "The Leader" as a liar and made him look a complete and utter prat.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Aug 16 - 03:30 AM

"another couple of decades of failed foreign interventions and US warmongering"
Trump has proposed the use of nuclear weapons in current military conflicts on three occasions - it doesn't come any more threatening than that.
America has always resorted to foreign interventions when it comes to their own interests - that is the nature of the beast.
There is no reason to believe that they will change and certainly not under a Trump administration.
"AMERICA FIRST"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 08:36 PM

that would definitely be seen as a death threat

Rather like the one Trump made - in a public forum - against Clinton, perhaps?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 08:27 PM

Steve, actually. Yes, I know. Why do you think I was in such a hurry to get me coat?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 07:57 PM

Now if you said that in some internet circles, that would definitely be seen as a death threat, Stu.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 06:22 PM

Yeah, it would be nice if someone DID delete Trump and Farage!

I'll get me coat...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 05:57 PM

...or delete 'em. Also fine by me.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 05:42 PM

Farage & Trump two peas in a pod, and apparently now buddies, Kevin. Be that as it may, if a MudElf wants to swap them to the other thread, fine by me!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 05:23 PM

What are these last posts doing in a thread about Labour, when there's already a thread about Trump where they'd be at home?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 04:38 PM

See Ake, now there's a classic example of your delusion.

Trump has stiffed creditors, screwed his contractors and workers, run a phony university to bilk money out of people, wrung as much money as he can out of properties and then declared "bankruptcy", refused to rent/sell to Persons of Color, has slimy criminals running his campaign, is a darling of the KKK and the "alt-right" arseholes, is a quintessential corporatist, cannot open his mouth without telling lies out of both sides of it, is a billionaire who pretends to be "a man of the people" &c...........

....and to you Clinton is a "crook" and a "phony".

You are evidently just about as intelligent and educated - or possibly a little less so - as the folks referenced, above, in Texas.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 04:19 PM

My use of "outsider" was of course racing parlance Mr McGrath.

Greg... Mr Farage's intervention was to highlight the fact that Mr Trump may fracture the cracked US political system which you have all been complaining about, without that fracture you are damned to another couple of decades of failed foreign interventions and US warmongering.......Mrs Clinton has made it clear that she will return to a "Cold War" stance, but the circumstances are now very different, the US is no longer the worlds bent policeman......the power base has shifted.
Several years ago I said that if political change was to come, then it would have to come via the right (social conservative)socialists and centrists can mould that change in their own image, but it is imperative that the powerful social conservative movement takes the initiative. Mrs Clinton is a crook and a phoney....who appears to have in thrall people who should know better.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 01:23 PM

Meant to add
Nice to see things haven't changed
"Of course Jom's knee-jerk reaction and default position meant that he either"
Still relying on mistakes, even when they have been acknowledged and withdraw
Always amusing to see small minds growing even smaller!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 01:14 PM

Hey, Ake!- here's a profile of Trump's people. I suspect Farage's are much the same.


The Dumbed Down Democracy
-Timothy Egan
Aug. 26, 2016


I give you Texas. A recent survey of Donald Trump supporters there found that 40 percent of them believe that Acorn will steal the upcoming election.

Acorn? News flash: That community-organizing group has been out of existence for six years. Acorn is gone, disbanded, dead. It can no more steal an election than Donald Trump can pole vault over his Mexican wall.

We know that at least 30 million American adults cannot read. But the current presidential election may yet prove that an even bigger part of the citizenry is politically illiterate — and functional. Which is to say, they will vote despite being unable to accept basic facts needed to process this American life.

Trump, who says he doesn't read much at all, is both a product of the epidemic of ignorance and a main producer of it. He can litter the campaign trail with hundreds of easily debunked falsehoods because conservative media has spent more than two decades tearing down the idea of objective fact.

"There's got to be a reckoning on all this," said Charlie Sykes, the influential conservative radio host, in a soul-searching interview with Business Insider. "We've created this monster."


Whole Article Here

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 12:53 PM

"Anyway, the deed is done, Brexit will be brought about."
If that's the case, it's thanks to arseholes like you.
Farage's support for Fascist Trump puts this decision exactly where it belongs -
"Sir Nigel Farage has a nice ring to it. I'm sure when the EU finally implodes we shall all be down on our knees thanking him"
as does your deification of him put you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 10:15 AM

Nigel Farage, Trumpist Arsehole has a much better ring to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 09:29 AM

I'm sure we can all think of a few "outsiders" who were very successful for a time who we most definitely do not love.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 09:14 AM

Anyway, the deed is done, Brexit will be brought about.
Mr Farage has triumphed against all odds.....we all love an "outsider"...don't we?

Personally I think he deserves some recognition......Sir Nigel Farage has a nice ring to it. I'm sure when the EU finally implodes we shall all be down on our knees thanking him.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 09:09 AM

Actually, I agree with Teribus. One thousand years ago we did not even have recognised government so how could we have held a referendum/   That's just daft.

There must be a reasonable time frame when discussing these matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 08:22 AM

You appear to have taken my remark as hostile, Teribus. Honestly it wasn't.

Actually there is rhetorical logic to using the longer time frame. There's probably a Greek term for t, there generally is. It serves to emphasise that the 43 years is not a period during which referendums were infrequent, but rather the reverse,

Local referendums about local issues are more readily justified.

The only countries where referendums on national issues are relatively common are Switzerland, where there have been over 600 since the mid 19th century (many on a canton level), and Ireland since the 1940s. These seem to work out well enough, with populations which have become accustomed to them. The English seem to panic at anything unfamiliar - hence the nonsense that was talked about how complicated Alternative Voting would have been.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 05:35 AM

*smile*, ok, Steve, I know you didn't, so we needn't continue this. But, as i am sure you are aware, my comments were actually about the subtext, not referendums.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 05:28 AM

I have made no comment on the frequency or otherwise of referendums. You two are floating up shit creek without the paddle that Teribus lost yonks ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 05:10 AM

Strange then DMcG that the example you give defines the start of your selected "given period" to an event as opposed to merely the date.

To say that we have had only three nation wide referenda in the last 1000 years is both meaningless and ridiculous for a whole host of reasons. But to say that since referenda have been used in the UK we have only had three nation wide referenda clearly shows the frequency they are adopted - seldom and only ever on issues where free choice is offered completely uncluttered by the demands of Party Politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 02:05 AM

Yes, I did appreciate that was the point you were making to Steve. I don't think it was the point you were making to Kevin.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 02:02 AM

Either way DMcG it still refutes the impression Shaw attempts to give that referenda are common - they are not, which was the point I was making - but then I think you appreciated that.