All things Labour Party

[Verbal]

It's absolutely unreasonable to infer his reasoning for these votes until you've heard his reasons. It's one of the reasons that politics is so grossly polarised. I'd rather make my mind up on any politician by listening to what they say and their reasonings before jumping to the bit where we condemn them.

 

One of the chief reasons politics is so grossly polarised is because of poisonous politicians like Philip Davies.

 

So there are two problems with your argument. One, you've got your causality backwards. And two, your argument is predicated on taking Davies' self-justifications at face value.

 

vin is right. Davies' voting record is contemptible. His preposterous rationalisations for it even more so.

[Jonnyboy]

It's absolutely unreasonable to infer his reasoning for these votes until you've heard his reasons. It's one of the reasons that politics is so grossly polarised. I'd rather make my mind up on any politician by listening to what they say and their reasonings before jumping to the bit where we condemn them.

 

I've heard his reasons. These benefit claimants are workshy spongers. They need to get off their backsides and we need to end this something for nothing culture.

Except when he and his wife are inheriting tens of millions of pounds.

[hypochondriac]

I've heard his reasons. These benefit claimants are workshy spongers. They need to get off their backsides and we need to end this something for nothing culture.

Except when he and his wife are inheriting tens of millions of pounds.

Do you have a link to where he referred to the electorate as workshy spongers? Thanks.

[hypochondriac]

One of the chief reasons politics is so grossly polarised is because of poisonous politicians like Philip Davies.

 

So there are two problems with your argument. One, you've got your causality backwards. And two, your argument is predicated on taking Davies' self-justifications at face value.

 

vin is right. Davies' voting record is contemptible. His preposterous rationalisations for it even more so.

I'm happy to be on the side of someone who is fighting to combat the high suicide rates, unfair sentencing and paternal rights of men whereas you appear to be on the side of someone like Jess Philips who displays open contempt for the opposite sex and who laughs at the idea of setting aside some time to discuss things in parliament like men killing themselves. Her and other odious shrews like her in parliament are the ones sowing the seeds of discord and certainly not Davies.

 

Despite his numerous flaws, at least you can say that corbyn is attempting to do what he believes is right no matter how misguided he is. The same cannot be said for the likes of Jess Phillips- read just a small portion of her book to see how her mind works.

Edited 20 February, 2018 by hypochondriac

[Lord Duckhunter]

Leave Davies alone, banging Esther Mcvey cuts him some slack

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lord Duckhunter]

It isn't simplistic at all. He has voted 'consistently' for a cut in spending on welfare benefits - out of 54 votes he has voted 52 times against, 0 for and been absent twice. The same with higher benefits for illness and disability (14 votes against, 0 for). By all means try and find his arguments against each of the bills but I think it's pretty reasonable to infer what his beliefs are from how he votes.

 

You seem to be well up together with his voting record. How many times has he voted against a "Mansion tax", you said he had consistently done so, so how many? Personally I can't ever remember a mansion tax put before parliament, but stand to be corrected

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Verbal]

I'm happy to be on the side of someone who is fighting to combat the high suicide rates, unfair sentencing and paternal rights of men whereas you appear to be on the side of someone like Jess Philips who displays open contempt for the opposite sex and who laughs at the idea of setting aside some time to discuss things in parliament like men killing themselves. Her and other odious shrews like her in parliament are the ones sowing the seeds of discord and certainly not Davies.

 

Despite his numerous flaws, at least you can say that corbyn is attempting to do what he believes is right no matter how misguided he is. The same cannot be said for the likes of Jess Phillips- read just a small portion of her book to see how her mind works.

 

So wait - you've gone from 'I won't judge Davies until I hear his self-serving justifications' to ' 'Im happy to be on his side'? That's some leap. So what you're really saying is he's a political hero of yours but you didn't want to admit it first time around. Hence the flannel about politics being 'polarised' by us all not sitting down and swallowing this garbage whole.

 

As for Jess Phillips, I've absolutely no idea why you mention her. I've never given her a moment's thought and I doubt my politics align with hers (I'm not even a member of the Labour party). But now you mention her, I can see from your comments that she would have an emasculating effect on faux-macho amateurs. I notice you haven't applied your own banjaxed rule with her that you want for Davies. Where's the 'let's hear her justifications and accept them as read.' All you've done is make a scarcely credible claim that you're read her book.

 

And as for Corbyn and his 'he believes he's right no matter how misguided he is', it's worth pointing that this precisely the character flaw that Corbyn shares with his nemesis Tony Blair, and which led to his worst folly and his ignominious downfall.

[sadoldgit]

What exactly has rees-mogg done in your mind that makes him a muppet or an unsavoury character? Other than being posh and having some opinions on abortion and brexit that some disagree with, what has he said or done that is so offensive?

 

I disagree with much of what corbyn says but I don't think he is unsavoury, I mostly think he is someone who believes what he says and has good intentions. In many ways he is a useful tool for those sinister people behind him like mcdonnell who genuinely are scary.

 

You lost me ages ago with your “socialism is dangerous” quote so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised to find you supporting the odious 1800s relic Rees-Mogg. If you can’t figure out what is wrong with him you are clearly too far to the right and too far gone.

[hypochondriac]

You lost me ages ago with your “socialism is dangerous” quote so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised to find you supporting the odious 1800s relic Rees-Mogg. If you can’t figure out what is wrong with him you are clearly too far to the right and too far gone.

I'm glad I lost you. Hopefully I'll stay lost in your mind. You've already shown yourself to be spectacularly closed minded so maybe best that you stop trying to understand what I write.

[moonraker]

I do not like Res-Mogg's politics, right wing of the Tory Party and would never give him my vote, however he is the MP for the constituency next to one in which I live and many of my colleagues are his constituents. A number of them have had personal experience of him helping them as their constituency MP and without exception they praise him for his help and his odd personable manner. Like me most of them will not vote for him but neither do they simplify their opposition to him simply on the basis of being a rich, posh, ultra Roman Catholic, they wont vote for him because of his fundamental right wing political believes.

[hypochondriac]

I do not like Res-Mogg's politics, right wing of the Tory Party and would never give him my vote, however he is the MP for the constituency next to one in which I live and many of my colleagues are his constituents. A number of them have had personal experience of him helping them as their constituency MP and without exception they praise him for his help and his odd personable manner. Like me most of them will not vote for him but neither do they simplify their opposition to him simply on the basis of being a rich, posh, ultra Roman Catholic, they wont vote for him because of his fundamental right wing political believes.

Thanks moonraker for once you and I agree. Good post.

[sadoldgit]

With regards to Rees-Mogg, this quote is from former Tory MP Matthew Parris -

"For the 21st century Conservative Party, Jacob Rees-Mogg would be pure hemlock. His manners are perfumed but his opinions are poison. Rees-Mogg is quite simply an unfailing, unbending, unrelenting reactionary.

I can see why he appeals to you so much hypo."

[Lord Duckhunter]

With regards to Rees-Mogg, this quote is from former Tory MP Matthew Parris -

"For the 21st century Conservative Party, Jacob Rees-Mogg would be pure hemlock. His manners are perfumed but his opinions are poison. Rees-Mogg is quite simply an unfailing, unbending, unrelenting reactionary.

I can see why he appeals to you so much hypo."

 

That’s it. If Parris the archetypal pinko, hates him so much , he gets my vote.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CB Fry]

With regards to Rees-Mogg, this quote is from former Tory MP Matthew Parris -

"For the 21st century Conservative Party, Jacob Rees-Mogg would be pure hemlock. His manners are perfumed but his opinions are poison. Rees-Mogg is quite simply an unfailing, unbending, unrelenting reactionary.

I can see why he appeals to you so much hypo."

 

Why is Matthew Parris writing directly to Saints Web contributors?

 

Any chance he can do one for me? I read his column every Saturday and everything.

[Verbal]

Why is Matthew Parris writing directly to Saints Web contributors?

 

Any chance he can do one for me? I read his column every Saturday and everything.

 

You really don't want to be a Moggk n o b.

[sadoldgit]

Why is Matthew Parris writing directly to Saints Web contributors?

 

Any chance he can do one for me? I read his column every Saturday and everything.

 

I’m sure, if you ask him nicely, he will do one just for you.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Did anyone listen to his incoherent speech today, how anyone can take him seriously is beyond me. His opposition to a free market in the delivery of letters and parcels was a classic Steptoe moment. The Royal Mail should be a monopoly because people only have one letter box. WTF.......

 

 

http:// http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/jeremy-corbyns-great-betrayal/21152#.WpQlrsqnyf0

 

Spot on regarding this man of principle.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Batman]

People only have one mouth. Maybe Jezza should feed us all.

 

There is a reason he trails behind dogs a terribke tory government

[Lord Duckhunter]

People only have one mouth.

 

Let’s nationalise food “It’s clearly a natural monopoly, after all people only have one” mouth.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited 26 February, 2018 by Lord Duckhunter

[Jonnyboy]

How is the "death" of the Labour Party going?

[Lord Duckhunter]

How is the "death" of the Labour Party going?

 

I’d say it’s going pretty well. Give Corbyn & momentum another 4 years & it’ll be pretty much unelectable

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Jonnyboy]

I’d say it’s going pretty well. Give Corbyn & momentum another 4 years & it’ll be pretty much unelectable

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Can you PM me the lottery numbers please?

[hypochondriac]

There's no doubt about it, Corbyn is absolutely the party leader everyone should be hoping gets to power. Here's another example of his impeccable judgement...

 

[Sheaf Saint]

Meanwhile, over at Tory HQ...

 

Ben Bradley's grovelling apology for his libelous tweet about Corbyn becomes the most re-tweeted item on Twitter so far this year

 

Boris Johnson, in his capacity as Foreign Secretary, claims the post-Brexit border between NI and Eire will be no different than driving between two London boroughs.

 

Jeremy Hunt is caught out as being jointly responsible for setting up the bogus awards ceremony where he received a humanitarian award.

 

And it is revealed that they are being forced to pay people to pretend to support them on social media because their online popularity is so poor.

 

It's all such a sorry state of affairs. Like Hypo said recently, the country desperately needs a credible alternative to the current options.

[hypochondriac]

Lol. I was waiting for the response to that to be finger pointing at the Tories saying "they're bad too!" The absolute stock response from any Labour supporter to anything like this as if that makes anything Corbyn does better.

[Sheaf Saint]

Lol. I was waiting for the response to that to be finger pointing at the Tories saying "they're bad too!" The absolute stock response from any Labour supporter to anything like this as if that makes anything Corbyn does better.

 

I wasn't suggesting at all that it makes Corbyn any better. I was pointing out that they are equally as crap as each other and that we need an alternative. I was actually agreeing with one of your previous posts.

[hypochondriac]

I wasn't suggesting at all that it makes Corbyn any better. I was pointing out that they are equally as crap as each other and that we need an alternative. I was actually agreeing with one of your previous posts.

 

I just think it's amusing that pointing out Tory failings on a thread about Corbyn was the first response to my post. It's not particularly relevant when discussing the Labour Party's inexorable slide into the divisions of identity politics, misandry and racism. I do agree though that both of them are awful representatives for this country.

[Sheaf Saint]

I just think it's amusing that pointing out Tory failings on a thread about Corbyn was the first response to my post. It's not particularly relevant when discussing the Labour Party's inexorable slide into the divisions of identity politics, misandry and racism. I do agree though that both of them are awful representatives for this country.

 

Should we start a separate thread for each party then?

[hypochondriac]

Should we start a separate thread for each party then?

I think it's fine to discuss the many failings in the Tory party but to bring it up immediately following a critical post about corbyn gives the impression that you are trying to mitigate Jeremy's many problems by shouting about the conservatives - a tactic regularly employed on here by the way.

[Batman]

I think it's fine to discuss the many failings in the Tory party but to bring it up immediately following a critical post about corbyn gives the impression that you are trying to mitigate Jeremy's many problems by shouting about the conservatives - a tactic regularly employed on here by the way.

for corbyn to win 60 seats more or what ever it is, he needs to show he and what he represents is a lot better than the government.

 

He can't and won't do that, hence why he is miles off getting those seats

[Sheaf Saint]

I think it's fine to discuss the many failings in the Tory party but to bring it up immediately following a critical post about corbyn gives the impression that you are trying to mitigate Jeremy's many problems by shouting about the conservatives - a tactic regularly employed on here by the way.

 

Yes, I agree, in that context it does seem like a classic case of whataboutery. But I wasn't responding directly to your post when I made mine.

 

In fairness though, this thread has long since moved on from being solely about JC, and has quite distinctly morphed into a general debate (if you can call it that) about British politics in general. Maybe it's time to re-name the thread appropriately, because the initial suggestion that the election of JC as leader would lead to the 'death' of the Labour party has proven to be completely false.

[hypochondriac]

Yes, I agree, in that context it does seem like a classic case of whataboutery. But I wasn't responding directly to your post when I made mine.

 

In fairness though, this thread has long since moved on from being solely about JC, and has quite distinctly morphed into a general debate (if you can call it that) about British politics in general. Maybe it's time to re-name the thread appropriately, because the initial suggestion that the election of JC as leader would lead to the 'death' of the Labour party has proven to be completely false.

 

There's still time. You could argue it's hastened the death of the Labour Party as it used to be. With the twerp Red Ed changing the voting, there isn't going to be a non hard left momentum loving socialist as leader for the foreseeable future.

Edited 28 February, 2018 by hypochondriac

[buctootim]

There's still time. You could argue it's hastened the death of the Labour Party as it used to be. With the twerp Red Ed changing the voting, there isn't going to be a non hard left momentum loving socialist as leader for the foreseeable future.

 

Not really. There has always been a battle between the 'hard' left and the political middle in the Labour Party, just as there is one between the middle and right in the Tories. Left leaders have been elected in the past - like Michael Foot, and to some extent Kinnock. After they had their chance and failed to get elected they were dumped for someone more mainstream.

[aintforever]

After they had their chance and failed to get elected they were dumped for someone more mainstream.

 

I think Milliband changing the rules puts a stop to that happening again.

[hypochondriac]

I think Milliband changing the rules puts a stop to that happening again.

Exactly. Hypothetically if corbyn fails, what is to stop momentum members from electing another candidate like Jeremy and just trying again?

[buctootim]

I think Milliband changing the rules puts a stop to that happening again.

 

I doubt it. Ultimately most politicians want to get elected, not just be a pressure group who let the other party win elections. Momentum used the rules to gain a foothold in Labour just as Militant Tendency did in the 1980s. Militant were kicked out and became the socialist party. Whatever happened to them?

[hypochondriac]

I doubt it. Ultimately most politicians want to get elected, not just be a pressure group who let the other party win elections. Momentum used the rules to gain a foothold in Labour just as Militant Tendency did in the 1980s. Militant were kicked out and became the socialist party. Whatever happened to them?

How will they get "kicked out?"

[buctootim]

How will they get "kicked out?"

 

They were deselected as candidates. Most politicians are pragmatic and aren't interested in ideological posturing. They want power and to get power you have to be popular.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Meanwhile, over at Tory HQ...

 

Ben Bradley's grovelling apology for his libelous tweet about Corbyn becomes the most re-tweeted item on Twitter so far this year

 

Boris Johnson, in his capacity as Foreign Secretary, claims the post-Brexit border between NI and Eire will be no different than driving between two London boroughs.

 

Jeremy Hunt is caught out as being jointly responsible for setting up the bogus awards ceremony where he received a humanitarian award.

 

And it is revealed that they are being forced to pay people to pretend to support them on social media because their online popularity is so poor.

 

It's all such a sorry state of affairs. Like Hypo said recently, the country desperately needs a credible alternative to the current options.

 

And they’re not being smashed in the polls. Why’s that then?

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/28/theresa-may-concedes-on-eu-migrants-residency-rights-during-brexit-transition

 

#proseccoandbeemers

[hypochondriac]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/28/theresa-may-concedes-on-eu-migrants-residency-rights-during-brexit-transition

 

#proseccoandbeemers

 

I don't know why people got so hung up on the transition period anyway. A few extra people coming in is nothing compared to the unlimited immigration from the past 20 years.

[hypochondriac]

Take a good look at the Canadian budget for examples of what the UK will look like under Corbyn:

 

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-the-liberals-deliver-a-federal-budget-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-budgeting-or-the-economy/amp?__twitter_impression=true

[buctootim]

Take a good look at the Canadian budget for examples of what the UK will look like under Corbyn:

 

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-the-liberals-deliver-a-federal-budget-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-budgeting-or-the-economy/amp?__twitter_impression=true

 

Can you post up Labours draft budget so we can compare them?

[hypochondriac]

Can you post up Labours draft budget so we can compare them?

Various Labour initiatives over the last few years clearly indicates that they will do something similar to Canada and prioritise "diversity" and "equality" over the health of the actual economy. Its what always happens when someone is as ideologically possessed as Labour clearly are- most recently when employing a racist as an advisor.

 

In Canada, equality of outcome is prioritised over growth and given the types of people in positions of influence in the Labour Party and some of the things we have seen and heard already, its really likely that they would walk a similar path.

Edited 1 March, 2018 by hypochondriac

[buctootim]

Various Labour initiatives over the last few years clearly indicates that they will do something similar to Canada and prioritise "diversity" and "equality" over the health of the actual economy. Its what always happens when someone is as ideologically possessed as Labour clearly are- most recently when employing a racist as an advisor.

 

In Canada, equality of outcome is prioritised over growth and given the types of people in positions of influence in the Labour Party and some of the things we have seen and heard already, its really likely that they would walk a similar path.

 

Hm. I know, lets draw a line between two totally unrelated events.

 

Critics condemn new Tory strategy for continuing the ‘war on drugs’

http://www.thenational.scot/news/15413008.Critics_condemn_new_Tory_strategy_for_continuing_the____war_on_drugs___/

 

Church Leaders In Philippines Condemn Bloody War On Drugs

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/20/544855446/church-leaders-in-philippines-condemn-bloody-war-on-drugs

 

Same thing innit?

Edited 1 March, 2018 by buctootim

[Verbal]

Various Labour initiatives over the last few years clearly indicates that they will do something similar to Canada and prioritise "diversity" and "equality" over the health of the actual economy. Its what always happens when someone is as ideologically possessed as Labour clearly are- most recently when employing a racist as an advisor.

 

In Canada, equality of outcome is prioritised over growth and given the types of people in positions of influence in the Labour Party and some of the things we have seen and heard already, its really likely that they would walk a similar path.

 

By some miracle (stuck clocks?) your choice of Canada is a good one in relation to Corbyn, because St Jez's policies in the 2017 manifesto would have resulted in an economy with a public/private balance roughly on a par with the socialist republic of Canada. If Corbyn were able to deliver a mixed economy like Canada's, it would be a win for everyone. Sadly, Corbyn is also vastly incompetent, has a record of precisely zero legislative achievements in over 30 years as a parliamentarian, and his election would cause the kind of run on the pound that would rule out pretty much everything promised.

 

But WTAF are you gibbering on about in claiming that Canada 'prioritises' 'equality of outcome over growth'? Care to take a look at how well the Canadian economy is doing? and what evidence do you have for such a claim? Any at all?

[Sheaf Saint]

And they’re not being smashed in the polls. Why’s that then?

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I guess mostly because the current opposition aren't doing a sufficient job of hammering their points home, and are not seen as a good enough alternative by a large amount of middle-ground voters. I've not doubted that for the duration of this thread.

 

But I would also venture that it is also largely to do with the fact that these kind of things are generally not reported in the kind of media outlets that traditional Tory voters read.

[hypochondriac]

I guess mostly because the current opposition aren't doing a sufficient job of hammering their points home, and are not seen as a good enough alternative by a large amount of middle-ground voters. I've not doubted that for the duration of this thread.

 

But I would also venture that it is also largely to do with the fact that these kind of things are generally not reported in the kind of media outlets that traditional Tory voters read.

Do you not think the fact they are still not seen as a good enough alternative is a catastrophic failure considering how poor the tories have been recently?

[Sheaf Saint]

Do you not think the fact they are still not seen as a good enough alternative is a catastrophic failure considering how poor the tories have been recently?

 

Yes, I do.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Latest Labour hypocrisy. Attacking Tories for bringing in ID checks to prevent voter fraud. However, it’s been pointed out that you have to show photo ID to attend some Labour Party meetings and they also legislated for ID checks to vote in Northern Ireland.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk