BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 01:46 AM

the frequency of an event can only be established from when the first event occurred

Not at all. The frequency of an event can be determined from any frame of reference that is relevant. It would be perfectly appropriate to talk about the frequency of occurrence of some event involving Scotland since the Act of Union, for example.

I think you are straying into maths and science again, Teribus, and last time I asked you didn't claim any specific background.   Formally the definition of frequency of an event is the number of occurrences in a given period, but there is no requirement to define the period in any specific way: frequency like that is always contextual.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 07:44 PM

You, Kevin, could, you actually might, no idea of course why you would want to say that as the frequency of an event can only be established from when the first event occurred.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 06:43 PM

Actually you could say three in the last 1000 years or more...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 12:36 PM

"You were the cheerleader here for saying that the world would come falling at our feet offering favourable deals, that trading with the world would be a cinch (even though we don't actually make much to trade)."

Don't think so Shaw, certainly not in those words. What I did say was that it would now be easier for the UK to enter into bilateral trade deals with countries throughout the world (Who have been our main trading partners for the last three years). Oh and I think we make a damned sight more than you obviously think we do.

Perspective Shaw - you yammering on as though referenda were a monthly occurrence in the UK - nationwide we have had three in the last 43 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 12:09 PM

Central government certainly does not "provide the dough".

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 11:36 AM

I do take your point, DMcG. But if you put the question of how parliament should run to a referendum there is still no escaping the fact that a crucial question is being put by the far more informed to the far less informed. That is my problem with all referendums. Were that our politicos all honest Johns who could put all facets of issues simply and neutrally to the people. As we saw in the last referendum, which saw a squalid disgrace of a campaign on both sides, it's more likely that pigs will fly. Referendums my arse!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 11:28 AM

Well I agree with all that, but central government provides the dough. We do have a unfair council tax system, of course, to make us feel that we have a stake locally. I did like the old Liberals' notion of a local income tax. Generally, if you are allocating the money for health, education, security and policing and environmental matters, you have a considerable degree of control. Remember rate-capping, supposedly the brainchild of the party of small government? Maggie used it to control leftie councils. We are still living with the aftermath. And, last time I saw an estimate, over three-quarters of local government spending money comes from the Treasury.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 11:02 AM

The fact that central government might have some role to play in relation to the kind of things you mention. steve, does not imply it hould be seen as having ultimate control. Society as a whole has a role in relation to how children are treated in the family, and this involves a role for central government in laying down regulations and resources - but in no sense are families franchised branches of government.

The same in principle should be recognised in other contexts. In many ways the UK, and particularly England perhaps has gone too far in inappropriate centralising. The principle of subsidiiarity is very much marginalised, and it needs to be central in all things.

Insofar as the EU has been guilty of the same thing, that was the key criticism that it deserved. Brexit will just makes it harder to change this, both inside the truncated EU and in the UK, or whatever portions of that remain.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 07:38 AM

What has my opinion on referendums in general got to do with "perspective?" You don't half talk twaddle at times.

As for the upshot of the leave vote, well there's plenty of time for more things to go wrong. Every little negative comment from European leaders that no, we're not getting a "special deal" unless we leave our borders open (which we already knew, but which was played down in the campaign) will knock a few more cents off the value of the pound. You were the cheerleader here for saying that the world would come falling at our feet offering favourable deals, that trading with the world would be a cinch (even though we don't actually make much to trade). Ain't happening, is it, and it's no use blaming the chilling world economy. We knew about all that yonks before we had xenophobic, manipulating dickheads like Johnson, Gove and Farage persuading us to leave. No irony in an extremely undemocratic campaign persuading us to leave the "undemocratic" EU, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 07:14 AM

Steve Shaw - 26 Aug 16 - 06:09 AM

"All referendums in a democratic country are abdications of responsibility."

And that is why we have so many of them isn't it Steve?

There have only been THREE UK refereda held. Others have been held in the constituent parts of the UK making a massive total of 11 since 1973 - none before then. Ever heard of something called perspective Shaw?

As to our "dire" economic state:

"whatever damage was done to consumer and business confidence in the UK in the days after the referendum result, was a short-term shock that has been quickly overcome.

The simple fact is that if consumers are buoyant, then business and investment should expand to serve their needs.

Moreover, the dire predictions from the International Monetary Fund, the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Her Majesty's Treasury and others that a Brexit vote was the greatest threat to global economic recovery also has proved wrong.

Yes, all the pre-existing problems of stagnation in Europe, the dire state of Italian banks, a slowdown in China and geo-political turmoil are still putting the brakes on the expansion of the international economy. The threat of Brexit, however, has mysteriously vanished from the business lexicon."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 06:26 AM

I'm not saying the AV referendum was well done, or not a sop to the liberals. But it was a vote about how Parliament works rather than what it does, and it doesn't seem right that those sorts of decisions have no checks and balances. The fixed term parliament is another, somewhat milder, example where parliament changed how it worked without anyone but themselves being able to question it. But it could just have well said ten years between elections and there is nothing in the formalities to stop that. (We have had long parliaments in the past, after all)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 06:09 AM

All referendums in a democratic country are abdications of responsibility. You hand over, every time, the decision-making to millions of people who are far less informed on the detail of issues and far less aware of potential consequences. It's like getting the schoolkids in Bude Junior to pick their new headteacher from a set of photos and just a little bad advice. In the system we have I want parliament to make the big decisions every time. If I don't like their decisions I'll vote for someone else next time in a GENERAL election. The alternative vote referendum was a cynical con to keep the gullible LibDems onside, certain to be thrown out. The efforts to inform the public as to what they were supposed to be voting about were pathetic. In the recent referendum there was a good deal of heat and very little light coming from both sides. Already we're facing a weakened currency and a probable recession, unless we keep on printing money, of course, and those are just the warning shots before anything to do with leaving has actually happened. Cor, who'd have thought it? Not little Englanders like Teribus, that's for sure. It was all going to be so easy, wasn't it? But now even Teribus is trying to soothe us by telling us that, don't worry, it'll be years before very much happens. In the words of Jim Royle, referendums my arse. Even the one in 1975.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 05:45 AM

I'd already replied to McGrath but my post didn't take. Of course MPs don't run everything directly. They delegate. But the ones who run departments are in charge. The manager of Bude Morrisons isn't a butcher but he is in charge of the the fact that meat sold in the shop must conform in quality, price and standard of display to company policy. It doesn't mean that he cuts the chops himself but the buck stops with him if sloppy butchery standards end up poisoning people or if blood drips all over the yoghurts in my trolley. The butcher in turn is accountable to him, and can't just swan off down the road with a wad of readies from the till to buy cheap beef at the farmers' market.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 05:23 AM

McGrath of Harlow - 25 Aug 16 - 09:05 PM

"Well MPs don't do those things do they? Most of them get done at a much more local level by people who are much more likely to know how."

Thank you for pointing that out to Mr Shaw - saved me the trouble.

The Principle of Subsidiarity should apply, with matters being organised as locally as possible, and that's supposed to be the ruling principle in the EU.

While it may well be what is supposed to be the ruling principle of the EU it is in fact the opposite of how they run the show, one of the very good reasons for getting out of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 02:17 AM

I would not go quite as far as Steve.   Referenda are generally an abdication of responsibility but occasionally they are appropriate. The one I think I is most defensible is the one on the Alternative vote. It would seem a bad idea if the government could just change the voting system at will. However, as Steve implied. it was hardly a glowing example of a well informed electorate taking a considered decision after suitable contemplation of the consequences.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 09:05 PM

Well MPs don't do those things do they? Most of them get done at a much more local level by people who are much more likely to know how. The Principle of Subsidiarity should apply, with matters being organised as locally as possible, and that's supposed to be the ruling principle in the EU.

In practice MPs are very limited in their ability to control the government. Much of what happens in Parliament is a kind of charade, with the decisions being made by a non-elected executive, basing it's power on a parliamentary majority dependant in practice on the votes of a tiny proportion of voters in relatively few constituencies, voting in a electoral system where very few of these members were actually the choice of amajority of those who voted, let alone the ppoplulation as a whole.

Worse systems exist. But it's quasi-democracy at best.

Referendums have serious problems too, even if in some ways they are closer to a democratic system. The problem with them is that the very size of the population puts rational debate and decision making out of reach. Mobs are not democratic.

A system that would overcome some of those problems and make for a more genuinely democratic process would be a kind of jury system, in which the temporary decision makers would have been selected at random to represent those who were not selected. They would have the responsibility of learning the facts, debating them, and deciding. Not a new idea - it goes back to the origins of democracy in Greece.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 08:19 PM

Well we actually elect MPs to run the country. To run the schools, the health service, welfare, the police, housing, employment, the roads, taxation and emptying the bins. That sounds awfully busy to me and they have my respect when they do the job well. I don't expect any MP to be a specialist in any field at the outset but I do expect them to grow rapidly in competence in the policy area they've been landed with. That's why we don't elect people who wear chicken suits or who put cardboard boxes on their heads. They should be making all the big decisions based on their expertise and should not be passing them on to a far more ignorant electorate (good job you didn't have to pass a test about Europe in order to vote, eh?) We should never, ever have referendums. It's a job that the vast majority of people are not equipped to do. That is a dereliction of democracy, not "democracy in action."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 07:46 PM

I think that's a pretty rosy view of elected MPs, Steve. In practice we elect MPs to do what the party decides, and in practice that means what the party leader decides.

Of course the Labour Party at present is playing by different rules, and that's not working out too well either, with the MPs standing out against the party members and the party leader they appointed.

Refererendums do have some merits in comparison. I've come to the conclusion they should run them on a best out of three basis. First time vote to make a provisional choice, second one a week or so later to confirm that, or to reject it. If it's rejected, a third one a couple of weeks later, to settle things.

That's the way we settle all kinds of things in real life when we toss a coin, and make it best of three. Always seems a lot fairer that way, which is why we do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 04:38 PM

I did not agree with the referendum in 1975 either. We elect politicians to get themselves knowledgable enough to make responsible decisions on our behalf. We do not elect politicians to be in dereliction of their duties in leaving the most crucial decisions to an electorate who are far less informed than they are and who are, in consequence, vulnerable to the kinds of lies peddled, for example, by both sides in the recent referendum.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 08:56 AM

I've realised I mistated the situation as regarding voting rights for EU citizens resident in the UK. Citizens of two other EU countries have full voting rights - Malta and Cyprus.
So a Greek from Cyprus gets the vote, whereas a Greek from Greece doesn't.

It's really a bit of a dog's dinner of an electorate really. Someone who'd spent years fighting the British in Ireland or elsewhere gets the vote, a Ghurka from Nepal who'd been in the British army, doesn't, but Sikh from India who's done the same does.

But the Cypriot who can vote is still liable to be deported along with the Greek if the government's bid to use EU immigrants as bargaining counters comes unstuck...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 08:26 AM

Steve Shaw - 25 Aug 16 - 06:40 AM

Referendum on EU membership was promised in 2010, unfortunately the Lib-Dems blocked it as part of the price to form a Coalition Government. The Conservatives stated that the previously promised referendum would be held if they won the 2015 election. I know that you are a Labour Party supporter and member and used to your chosen political party failing to honour it's election promises, but could you explain what is actually wrong with a political party living up to the promises made to those who voted for them?

No problem with the EU Referendum back in 1975 then Shaw?

1975 voter turn out 64.62% resulted in a YES for EU membership by 43% of the total electorate - 17,378,581 votes
2016 voter turn out 72.21% resulted in a NO to EU membership by 37.44% of the total electorate - 17,410,742 votes

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 07:51 AM

100% of the UK electorate had the option to vote. 29% chose not to vote. What's the problem?

The vote didn't go his way and he's still sulking.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 07:26 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 07:06 AM

Ah, Steve, you meant Juncker rather than Owen, I think. Apologies. But I stick to my remark that I think Owen is being tactical rather than straightforward.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 06:54 AM

Don't know why the phone threw a 'toon' into that.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 06:49 AM

I agree, Steve. I see Owen's comments as being more about the leadership election toon and positioning for the next General Election than genuinely being about the EU.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 06:40 AM

Well why take him at face value? He's a politician! And they don't want us out, remember. Plenty of water to go under the bridge before Article 50 is invoked and you can bet your life that the water is already flowing. And the most terrible idea anyone has come up with was come up with by a Tory, who came up with the idea that we should have a referendum on a matter that we elect governments to deal with. And he did it for terrible reasons, namely that he was running scared of his own right wing and running even more scared that Farage would nick Tory seats. And the most terrible thing of all is that he was certain he would win. Now it's going to take an exceptionally terrible Labour government in power to come up with a more terrible idea than that one.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 05:09 AM

DMcG - 25 Aug 16 - 01:47 AM

Jean-Claude Juncker - "There will be no talks or informal discussions between the EU, or member states of the EU, and the UK until after the UK has invoked Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty".

Taking that at face value that would mean that by the time all the details of the Brexit deal are known we will be on our way out of the EU and will not be in any position whatsoever to renegotiate the terms of our leaving, so what exactly having a referendum on the terms does I cannot imagine, so I agree with you it is a terrible idea - but generally the Labour Party do keep coming up with terrible ideas.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 01:47 AM

The question I asked people's views about was Owen Smith's proposal for a SECOND referendum or using a general election to confirm whatever had been agreed. Just a reminder so as not to confuse this with referendum that has taken place, as some of the posts above seem to.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stanron
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 08:46 PM

Steve Shaw wrote: Yep. And just under 38% of the UK electorate voted to leave. Live with that. Just over one third of the electorate dragging us out of the EU. Wow. Democracy in action.

100% of the UK electorate had the option to vote. 29% chose not to vote. What's the problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 08:39 PM

"The referendum was about whether or not the UK electorate wanted to remain in the EU or not...it was a vote for the electorate of the UK and for them alone..."

Yep. And just under 38% of the UK electorate voted to leave. Live with that. Just over one third of the electorate dragging us out of the EU. Wow. Democracy in action.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 08:23 PM

True, EU nationals resident in the UK do not get to vote in natiinal elections. (Apart from English, Scots, Welsh and Irish). Citizens of Commonwealth countries resident in the UK do get to vote in national elections. So long as people are 18 or more.

But in local elections all EU residents get to vote.

That's how it is. That's "the UK Electorate". Nothing particularly logical or consistent about that. Nothing set in stone. It will change when we leave the EU, because the EU residents, even if allowed to stay, will lose their vote in local elections.

I'd prefer the way they did it in Scotland for the independence referendum - everybody got to vote, from 16 up. I'd see that as a significantly more democratic electorate.

The vote was whether Britain should stay in the EU. Not allowing EU residents a say in that wasn't a matter of "of course". It was anti democratic and shameful. More so because all the parties colluded in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 07:44 PM

Mr T, you're an obnoxious idiot. Live with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 07:41 PM

McGrath of Harlow - 24 Aug 16 - 01:14 PM

"About as democratic as the rule they had this time, which was that those two categories of people, the ones most likely to vote Remain, were excluded."

Complete and utter BS Kevin there is no Option (a), (b), or (c). The choice is "In" or "Out" and when they held the referendum those who were thought to vote most likely to remain didn't - traditional grass roots Labour voters.

The referendum was about whether or not the UK electorate wanted to remain in the EU or not - EU citizens living and working in the UK did not and quite rightly should have had no say whatsoever in that vote, it was a vote for the electorate of the UK and for them alone. EU citizens after all do not get to vote in our General Elections do they?

The referendum has been held the result was that we are leaving - live with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 01:14 PM

About as democratic as the rule they had this time, which was that those two categories of people, the ones most likely to vote Remain, were excluded.

In these days when commercial interactions are taken to be the only really acceptable way of managing things, there'd be a good case for the kind of protection customers are meant to have. If you buy something on the basis of demonstrably false claims about what it can do, the deal is void. And if you sign up to a deal and rapidly realise you were foolish in doing so, you have a period of grace during which you can cancel it.

Apply those terms to the Brexit vote...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 01:08 PM

If, McGrath, the referendum were on whether you wanted option a, b, or c then we could get the whole thing over relatively quickly, though with massive arguments on what a, b and c are, and whether d should be on the list as well. But the real danger lies in a yes/no referendum, because a vote of 'no' would put us in a very difficult position where the EU and negotiators had agreed the exit terms but the country had rejected them. Heaven only knows what would happen then.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 12:30 PM

So it's ok to shag a dead pig's head as long as you do it in private....😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 12:06 PM

McGrath of Harlow - 24 Aug 16 - 11:57 AM

You forgot your most important condition for your second referendum Kevin - those likely to vote "Leave" are not entitled to vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 12:00 PM

DMcG - 24 Aug 16 - 07:02 AM

And somehow DMcG I get the distinct impression that the only person who you will ever recognise as saying "something of significance" is yourself.

But I did notice you could not answer, or dismiss, any of the points put to you. I will ask again why does it necessarily require someone to be on "above median salary" to do the ground work to look into getting a job before one moves? Rhetorical Question as I have grown used to "socialists" not answering the hard questions put to them - Nothing At All - Just application of plain good common sense - an attribute sadly lacking in our country today it would seem.

Akenaton is perfectly correct most of those calling themselves "socialists" today are nothing of the sort they are a "liberalist" wrecking crew.

As for Brexit negotiations - the Labour Party cannot even organise it's own bloody leadership election without making it a three ring circus - or hasn't that struck home yet, plain and obvious to the rest of the British electorate.

Steve Shaw - 24 Aug 16 - 08:45 AM

"A second referendum would be justified once the details of our exit deal are clear."

If the details of our exit deal are clear numbnuts, that means that Article 50 has already been triggered and we are leaving ( That is not according to me that is according to your pal Jean-Claude Juncker), a second referendum under such circumstances is a complete and utter non-starter - we would have to reapply to join the EU, which would now mean that we would have to ditch Sterling and take on the Euro.

DMcG - 24 Aug 16 - 08:12 AM - I take it that that was something of significance was it?

McGrath of Harlow - 24 Aug 16 - 09:22 AM - The man was caught making a complete and utter arse of himself - live with it. IF he ever wanted to take the episode further Sir Richard Branson would make complete and utter mincemeat of him - hopefully, unlike you, Seumas Milne will realise that and put it to bed as quickly as possible and bury it even quicker.

Shaw seems to be obsessed with this pig's head thing - tell me Shaw, I take it that you did go to university - while there Shaw, did you consider yourself to be in the public eye?? Oh hang about, you are just vain enough to believe that you were.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 11:57 AM

The trouble with the kind of referendum Owen Smith seems to be calling for is that it's not clear what,d be on offer. Basically there are three ways to go - there'd be aceepting whatever cobbled up deal the government might manage to get ( if in fact suchh couLd be obtained), there'd be going for pure Brexit, no dealls, and there,d be 'let's call the whole thing off", and staying in the EU.

I suspect that last would probably be the option of preference for most people - but it doesn't seem likely it'd be on offer.

If I had my choice I'd go for a fresh in out vote, but this time with EU imigrants having the same right to vote as Commonwealth immigrants, and a vote for 16 and 17 year olds. Both of which they had in the Scottish independance vote. After all, those are the two groups with most at stake in this.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 11:15 AM

The main problem with a second referendum is that it is almost certain the "It's not good enough" contingent would win and there will be a demand for things to be included that were never part of the negotiation. If in a subsequent negotiation these were granted it is likely something else would have to be traded away. We could get onto a neverendum very easily.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 10:03 AM

(Ear ear? You're not in the House now, Shaw me lad...)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 10:01 AM

He was a twit for making an issue out of it. He sorely needed a good spin doctor with him. Ignore it and it'll go away. He made a pig's ear ear of the whole thing, which is at least better than a pig's...oh, never mind...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 09:22 AM

Teribus did actually suggest that someone coming to London could find "a cheap B&B", in so many words.

It's easy to get confused about stuff like that, and I assume you weren't intentionally telling a porky, but I suggest you check what you've written, T, before saying you never wrote it.
.........
As for the train, it was clearly crowded since other people were having to sit on the floor.
Reserved seats aren't vacant seats, and nor are seats with bags on them. Obviously Corbyn wouldn't accept being upgraded to First Class while others were still without seats.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 08:45 AM

A second referendum would be justified once the details of our exit deal are clear. We should never have had the first one, of course, with an electorate making a choice based on ignorance and the manipulations on both sides of the argument, but we are where we are. General elections should never be predicated on nominated issues. That is not what they are for.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 08:12 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 08:06 AM

Any views on Owen Smith's idea of using a general election to approve the results of a Brexit negotiation. It seems to me to be a truly terrible idea. A second referendum would be bad enough but at least would not conflate the results of a negotiation with who governs us for the next parliament.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 07:02 AM

I have a policy as I have said before on this website that I am happy to debate but try to avoid pointless arguments. I have said all I intend to say on the question of moving for work unless something of significance is said.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 06:58 AM

Well, mess-ups are all part of being in the public eye. Boris messed up on piccaninnies and call-me-Dave messed up shagging a dead pig's head. Prince Harry messed up by letting someone take a pic of his bare wagging arse as he gave a girl a standing-up one from behind. Naz Shah messed up by agreeing that Israel could be moved to the US. Call-me-Dave messed up by calling a referendum he was certain he would win, then losing it. Michael Foot messed up by not dressing up posh enough at a time when such things mattered. Gordon Brown messed up by forgetting that his mic was still on and over old-age pensions. I could go on. Just a small corrective to anyone who wishes to make capital out of Corbyn's train gaffe. Anyone old enough to remember Jennifer's ear?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 06:48 AM

Tell me DMcG what it is it that makes it impossible for people to do a bit of research and look for a job before making a move? What resources do you need to do that? Certainly none that require a premier league footballer's wages, in fact they are freely available to all at any Library, Citizen's Advice Bureau, or Job Centre.

Mind you, no wonder you and your pals think life is so difficult for the common man, the person you want to lead the country, couldn't organise a bottle party in a brewery and gets out of a perfectly serviceable seat on a train to sit on the floor, in an attempt to convey the impression that the trains are overcrowded but is dumb enough to be caught on CCTV doing it.

Perhaps you should all be walking round with labels on your necks.