Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Stevo_666

Jez mon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

And just to show why we need to remain vigilant in the fight against leftiebollox: that's a lot of people going to get taxed more.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/9717227/john-mcdonnell-eyes-income-tax-bombshell/

To paraphrase a line from the article "a staggeringly high number of people earn more than the average public sector wage"

It's not really staggering is it, its just how averages work. If anything a right wing paper should be saying its a staggeringly low number, and using it to argue that public sector employees are overpaid.

Maybe, but that's not the point I was making. Do you think what is being proposed is a good idea?

Given our education system is turning out journalists who are confounded by the way averages work out, we clearly need to spend more on our education system. So raising taxes doesn't seem like a stupid idea.

The last paragraph also points out that it isn't actually labour party policy.

So you're not too fussed about where it comes from as long as we just pay more tax? I think you should lead by example and inspire others to do the same.

Stevo_666

Interesting link about the 'stop the coup' organiser Michael Chessum. No surprise that Labour were trying to capitalise (ironic wording) on the protests:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/30/brexit-momentum-protests-led-hard-left-student-union-activist/

He is quoted as saying they would defend civil disobedience. Fits the Corbyn mould pretty closely then.

morstar

Jez mon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

And just to show why we need to remain vigilant in the fight against leftiebollox: that's a lot of people going to get taxed more.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/9717227/john-mcdonnell-eyes-income-tax-bombshell/

To paraphrase a line from the article "a staggeringly high number of people earn more than the average public sector wage"

It's not really staggering is it, its just how averages work. If anything a right wing paper should be saying its a staggeringly low number, and using it to argue that public sector employees are overpaid.

Maybe, but that's not the point I was making. Do you think what is being proposed is a good idea?

Given our education system is turning out journalists who are confounded by the way averages work out, we clearly need to spend more on our education system. So raising taxes doesn't seem like a stupid idea.

The last paragraph also points out that it isn't actually labour party policy.

The irony of your quite sensible post is that under Gove, any school below average was deemed to be failing!
We could have the best system in the world and still brand 50% as failures. Therefore, I can't see how education would have helped given that the minister for education had no grasp of averages himself and used them as a tool to justify ideological policies.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Interesting link about the 'stop the coup' organiser Michael Chessum. No surprise that Labour were trying to capitalise (ironic wording) on the protests:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/30/brexit-momentum-protests-led-hard-left-student-union-activist/

He is quoted as saying they would defend civil disobedience. Fits the Corbyn mould pretty closely then.

As opposed to Gove not ruling out ignoring legislature.

ballysmate

Or more accurately, according to the clip on BBC news, refusing to be drawn on a Bill that hasn't even been published.
But that wouldn't be a sensational headline would it?

Btw I would fully expect any government of whatever stripe to comply with legislation. It would be pointless for them to do otherwise as the courts would over rule them by saying their actions were unlawful.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Interesting link about the 'stop the coup' organiser Michael Chessum. No surprise that Labour were trying to capitalise (ironic wording) on the protests:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/30/brexit-momentum-protests-led-hard-left-student-union-activist/

He is quoted as saying they would defend civil disobedience. Fits the Corbyn mould pretty closely then.

As opposed to Gove not ruling out ignoring legislature.

Wrong thread. This is for slagging off lefties.

rjsterry

Ballysmate wrote:

Or more accurately, according to the clip on BBC news, refusing to be drawn on a Bill that hasn't even been published.
But that wouldn't be a sensational headline would it?

Btw I would fully expect any government of whatever stripe to comply with legislation. It would be pointless for them to do otherwise as the courts would over rule them by saying their actions were unlawful.

The last government had to be taken to court three times for repeatedly breaching it's own legislation on air pollution, and I'm sure that's not the only example. Sometimes it would appear to take more than it simply being unlawful.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Or more accurately, according to the clip on BBC news, refusing to be drawn on a Bill that hasn't even been published.
But that wouldn't be a sensational headline would it?

Btw I would fully expect any government of whatever stripe to comply with legislation. It would be pointless for them to do otherwise as the courts would over rule them by saying their actions were unlawful.

The last government had to be taken to court three times for repeatedly breaching it's own legislation on air pollution, and I'm sure that's not the only example. Sometimes it would appear to take more than it simply being unlawful.

The current strategic advisor who is apparently calling the shots, is a man who has literally been found to be in contempt of parliament.

rick_chasey

But it’s alrite lads. Only Corbyn is he the kind of guy who will deselect anyone who doesn’t support his divisive policies in parliament.

Oh wait, it’s actually no.10 right now. :roll:

At least it’s only Corbyn’s office who are leaking that he won’t stand down if he loses a vote of no confidence when he’s prime minister. Oh no, wait, that wasn’t Corbyn was it? No it’s no.10 right now.

At least legislature is something only Corby ignores...nah it’s not is it, as that’s something the current cabinet won’t rule out.

I guess the Torres can be glad that now they’ve opened the can of worms that usual norms are to be put aside, that they can fairly say “he’d bypass all parliamentary norms” because they have already.

When the shoe is on the other foot....

ballysmate

rjsterry wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Or more accurately, according to the clip on BBC news, refusing to be drawn on a Bill that hasn't even been published.
But that wouldn't be a sensational headline would it?

Btw I would fully expect any government of whatever stripe to comply with legislation. It would be pointless for them to do otherwise as the courts would over rule them by saying their actions were unlawful.

The last government had to be taken to court three times for repeatedly breaching it's own legislation on air pollution, and I'm sure that's not the only example. Sometimes it would appear to take more than it simply being unlawful.

Was it not the case that the court found that the government's policy to be inadequate rather than it acting wilfully in defiance of a specific Act?

Even if you don't accept that you are comparing apples and oranges, you seem to be agreeing with the second part of my post that the courts would force compliance.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

Or more accurately, according to the clip on BBC news, refusing to be drawn on a Bill that hasn't even been published.
But that wouldn't be a sensational headline would it?

Btw I would fully expect any government of whatever stripe to comply with legislation. It would be pointless for them to do otherwise as the courts would over rule them by saying their actions were unlawful.

Cake Stop meets 'Minority Report'...

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Or more accurately, according to the clip on BBC news, refusing to be drawn on a Bill that hasn't even been published.
But that wouldn't be a sensational headline would it?

Btw I would fully expect any government of whatever stripe to comply with legislation. It would be pointless for them to do otherwise as the courts would over rule them by saying their actions were unlawful.

Cake Stop meets 'Minority Report'...

I mean, it's not like some of the substance of it had already been leaked to the BBC which was why they asked the question, oh no.

ballysmate

Rick Chasey wrote:

But it’s alrite lads. Only Corbyn is he the kind of guy who will deselect anyone who doesn’t support his divisive policies in parliament.

Oh wait, it’s actually no.10 right now. :roll:

At least it’s only Corbyn’s office who are leaking that he won’t stand down if he loses a vote of no confidence when he’s prime minister. Oh no, wait, that wasn’t Corbyn was it? No it’s no.10 right now.

At least legislature is something only Corby ignores...nah it’s not is it, as that’s something the current cabinet won’t rule out.

I guess the Torres can be glad that now they’ve opened the can of worms that usual norms are to be put aside, that they can fairly say “he’d bypass all parliamentary norms” because they have already.

When the shoe is on the other foot....

Deselecting someone is the prerogative of any party leadership, governed by the rules the party set. It is up to the leadership if they want to go down that route, be it BJ, Corby, Swinson or whoever. They must decide if any resulting disunity is politically acceptable.

As regarding the refusal to stand down, isn't that in keeping with the Fixed Parliament Act, whereby a PM who loses a confidence vote, calls an election at a time of their choosing?

The government hasn't ignored any legislation, Gove only refused to be drawn on a Bill that hasn't even been published yet.

They haven'y bypassed Parliamentary norms, on the contrary, they have abided by them. I think I read that Parliament has been prorogued over 90 times in the last 100 years. BJ has said that if MPs won't back him, they should call a vote of no confidence. Entirely in keeping with Parliamentary norms eh?

rick_chasey

Ballysmate wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

But it’s alrite lads. Only Corbyn is he the kind of guy who will deselect anyone who doesn’t support his divisive policies in parliament.

Oh wait, it’s actually no.10 right now. :roll:

At least it’s only Corbyn’s office who are leaking that he won’t stand down if he loses a vote of no confidence when he’s prime minister. Oh no, wait, that wasn’t Corbyn was it? No it’s no.10 right now.

At least legislature is something only Corby ignores...nah it’s not is it, as that’s something the current cabinet won’t rule out.

I guess the Torres can be glad that now they’ve opened the can of worms that usual norms are to be put aside, that they can fairly say “he’d bypass all parliamentary norms” because they have already.

When the shoe is on the other foot....

Deselecting someone is the prerogative of any party leadership, governed by the rules the party set. It is up to the leadership if they want to go down that route, be it BJ, Corby, Swinson or whoever. They must decide if any resulting disunity is politically acceptable.

As regarding the refusal to stand down, isn't that in keeping with the Fixed Parliament Act, whereby a PM who loses a confidence vote, calls an election at a time of their choosing?

The government hasn't ignored any legislation, Gove only refused to be drawn on a Bill that hasn't even been published yet.

They haven'y bypassed Parliamentary norms, on the contrary, they have abided by them. I think I read that Parliament has been prorogued over 90 times in the last 100 years. BJ has said that if MPs won't back him, they should call a vote of no confidence. Entirely in keeping with Parliamentary norms eh?

Keep telling yourself that.

None of it is against the rules (though the main strategist in #10 has been found to be in contempt of parliament, but that carries no punishment), but we both know the way UK politics works is more a vibe than a bunch of rulez, and we both know that what is being done is fairly unusual (proroguing parliament for *five weeks* is not usual and you know it as much as I do*) and does not demonstrate an interest in furthering debate and parliamentary scrutiny as each decision is an attempt to reduce just that.

If that suits you then that's fine, but I would suggest that reducing parliamentary scrutiny only allows for more extremist leadership, and even if you're OK with the means this time because the ends suit, it may not be so next time.




*https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8589

The typical recent duration of a UK Parliament’s prorogation has been very short. Since the 1980s prorogation has rarely lasted longer than two weeks (and, between sessions during a Parliament, has typically lasted less than a week). It has always led either to the dissolution of the current Parliament (prior to a General Election) or the start of a new Parliamentary session.

tangled_metal

Isn't that the issue tories should be concerned about? What Boris (I mean Cummins) does now can be done by any pm in the future. If that pm happens to be politically left of Corbyn then this action by Boris will bite them on the derriere in the future.

All for Brexit. I hope that works out well because the effects of this path of actions could have serious consequences on the near future.

ballysmate

Tangled Metal wrote:

Isn't that the issue tories should be concerned about? What Boris (I mean Cummins) does now can be done by any pm in the future. If that pm happens to be politically left of Corbyn then this action by Boris will bite them on the derriere in the future.

All for Brexit. I hope that works out well because the effects of this path of actions could have serious consequences on the near future.

If whatever the government does is within the rules, there would be nothing to stop any future governments doing it anyway, whether BJ does it or not.

rjsterry

Ballysmate wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Isn't that the issue tories should be concerned about? What Boris (I mean Cummins) does now can be done by any pm in the future. If that pm happens to be politically left of Corbyn then this action by Boris will bite them on the derriere in the future.

All for Brexit. I hope that works out well because the effects of this path of actions could have serious consequences on the near future.

If whatever the government does is within the rules, there would be nothing to stop any future governments doing it anyway, whether BJ does it or not.

There aren't any codified rules, just the accumulated precedence of what governments have done before. If this course of action succeeds it becomes the new rules.

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Or more accurately, according to the clip on BBC news, refusing to be drawn on a Bill that hasn't even been published.
But that wouldn't be a sensational headline would it?

Btw I would fully expect any government of whatever stripe to comply with legislation. It would be pointless for them to do otherwise as the courts would over rule them by saying their actions were unlawful.

Cake Stop meets 'Minority Report'...

Not really - a reasonable answer would be "Of course we will abide by the law of the land, but at the moment there is no bill for us to respond to. The current law is that we are leaving on the 31st October and blah blah etc." Gove missed out the first bit deliberately.

Stevo_666

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Or more accurately, according to the clip on BBC news, refusing to be drawn on a Bill that hasn't even been published.
But that wouldn't be a sensational headline would it?

Btw I would fully expect any government of whatever stripe to comply with legislation. It would be pointless for them to do otherwise as the courts would over rule them by saying their actions were unlawful.

Cake Stop meets 'Minority Report'...

Not really - a reasonable answer would be "Of course we will abide by the law of the land, but at the moment there is no bill for us to respond to. The current law is that we are leaving on the 31st October and blah blah etc." Gove missed out the first bit deliberately.

It is exactly that - as they have not failed to comply with anything yet. It is a potential future event, but in your world I guess they are already guilty?

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Or more accurately, according to the clip on BBC news, refusing to be drawn on a Bill that hasn't even been published.
But that wouldn't be a sensational headline would it?

Btw I would fully expect any government of whatever stripe to comply with legislation. It would be pointless for them to do otherwise as the courts would over rule them by saying their actions were unlawful.

Cake Stop meets 'Minority Report'...

Not really - a reasonable answer would be "Of course we will abide by the law of the land, but at the moment there is no bill for us to respond to. The current law is that we are leaving on the 31st October and blah blah etc." Gove missed out the first bit deliberately.

It is exactly that - as they have not failed to comply with anything yet. It is a potential future event, but in your world I guess they are already guilty?

No, just shifty.

Stevo_666

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Or more accurately, according to the clip on BBC news, refusing to be drawn on a Bill that hasn't even been published.
But that wouldn't be a sensational headline would it?

Btw I would fully expect any government of whatever stripe to comply with legislation. It would be pointless for them to do otherwise as the courts would over rule them by saying their actions were unlawful.

Cake Stop meets 'Minority Report'...

Not really - a reasonable answer would be "Of course we will abide by the law of the land, but at the moment there is no bill for us to respond to. The current law is that we are leaving on the 31st October and blah blah etc." Gove missed out the first bit deliberately.

It is exactly that - as they have not failed to comply with anything yet. It is a potential future event, but in your world I guess they are already guilty?

No, just shifty.

There is a subtle difference...

Pross

Hearing Corbyn speaking today about the possibility of an election really is depressing. He's said and done nothing of note on Brexit or any other policy since the last GE and suddenly he's back in man of the people campaign mode. How did we end up with this choice as our nation's leader?

mr_goo

Pross wrote:

Hearing Corbyn speaking today about the possibility of an election really is depressing. He's said and done nothing of note on Brexit or any other policy since the last GE and suddenly he's back in man of the people campaign mode. How did we end up with this choice as our nation's leader?

Thankfully he isn't the PM. If by some cataclysmic event he does end up in No10, I'm out of here with every brass Razoo I possess.

rolf_f

Pross wrote:

Hearing Corbyn speaking today about the possibility of an election really is depressing. He's said and done nothing of note on Brexit or any other policy since the last GE and suddenly he's back in man of the people campaign mode. How did we end up with this choice as our nation's leader?

"Grandad Jeremy - what did you do during Brexit". "Errrrrrrrr, I gave a couple of speeches and nearly expressed an opinion".

I don't know why people are so scared of him as a PM. He wouldn't actually do anything. We'd have five years of dithering and he'd be gone.

ballysmate

Rolf F wrote:

Pross wrote:

Hearing Corbyn speaking today about the possibility of an election really is depressing. He's said and done nothing of note on Brexit or any other policy since the last GE and suddenly he's back in man of the people campaign mode. How did we end up with this choice as our nation's leader?

"Grandad Jeremy - what did you do during Brexit". "Errrrrrrrr, I gave a couple of speeches and nearly expressed an opinion".

I don't know why people are so scared of him as a PM. He wouldn't actually do anything. We'd have five years of dithering and he'd be gone.

This tw@t at No11 would be more scary.

surrey_commuter

Ballysmate wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Pross wrote:

Hearing Corbyn speaking today about the possibility of an election really is depressing. He's said and done nothing of note on Brexit or any other policy since the last GE and suddenly he's back in man of the people campaign mode. How did we end up with this choice as our nation's leader?

"Grandad Jeremy - what did you do during Brexit". "Errrrrrrrr, I gave a couple of speeches and nearly expressed an opinion".

I don't know why people are so scared of him as a PM. He wouldn't actually do anything. We'd have five years of dithering and he'd be gone.

This tw@t at No11 would be more scary.

one of the good things about Boris and his ever growing list of spending pledges is that J.C. McDonnell seems slightly less scary

mr_goo

Rolf F wrote:

Pross wrote:

Hearing Corbyn speaking today about the possibility of an election really is depressing. He's said and done nothing of note on Brexit or any other policy since the last GE and suddenly he's back in man of the people campaign mode. How did we end up with this choice as our nation's leader?

"Grandad Jeremy - what did you do during Brexit". "Errrrrrrrr, I gave a couple of speeches and nearly expressed an opinion".

I don't know why people are so scared of him as a PM. He wouldn't actually do anything. We'd have five years of dithering and he'd be gone.

Diane Abbott as Home Secretary!!!! Just as frightening as JMac in No11.

bradsbeard

Mr Goo wrote:

Diane Abbott as Home Secretary!!!! Just as frightening as JMac in No11.

These are the reasons I can no longer vote Labour. 30 years been a Labour supporter and it does hurt I can no longer have faith in the party.

Stevo_666

Mr Goo wrote:

Pross wrote:

Hearing Corbyn speaking today about the possibility of an election really is depressing. He's said and done nothing of note on Brexit or any other policy since the last GE and suddenly he's back in man of the people campaign mode. How did we end up with this choice as our nation's leader?

Thankfully he isn't the PM. If by some cataclysmic event he does end up in No10, I'm out of here with every brass Razoo I possess.

Maybe not leave the country, but I have contingency plans in the offing - just in case. Plan for the worst etc...

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Pross wrote:

Hearing Corbyn speaking today about the possibility of an election really is depressing. He's said and done nothing of note on Brexit or any other policy since the last GE and suddenly he's back in man of the people campaign mode. How did we end up with this choice as our nation's leader?

"Grandad Jeremy - what did you do during Brexit". "Errrrrrrrr, I gave a couple of speeches and nearly expressed an opinion".

I don't know why people are so scared of him as a PM. He wouldn't actually do anything. We'd have five years of dithering and he'd be gone.

This tw@t at No11 would be more scary.

Remember, this is the bloke who was sacked by Ken Livingstone while at the GLC for being too left wing. That has to take some doing