Join the Labour Party and save your country!

ballysmate

Don't forget Jezza's mate, Red Ken. who had been the leaders choice to joint chair a defence review.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... urope.html

ballysmate

Like it or not for some people on here, immigration is a big issue for many voters in this country. That covers people from most of the political spectrum. So what does Jezza and his ex fancy piece, Abbott do? Join a refugee protest in Calais in support of the UK opening its border.
Got to be worth a few more votes.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

Like it or not for some people on here, immigration is a big issue for many voters in this country. That covers people from most of the political spectrum. So what does Jezza and his ex fancy piece, Abbott do? Join a refugee protest in Calais in support of the UK opening its border.
Got to be worth a few more votes.

Apparently he was mistaken for the British Prime minister

No wonder he was popular in Calais as they probably thought he could do something about it for them.

DeVlaeminck

It seems Corbyn is willing to put his views on immigration above the natural constituency of the Labour party and it will lose him any chance of winning the election.

The Beckett report on the election made it pretty clear that Labour was seen as out of touch with the public re. immigration and that is with Miliband's attempts to look tougher in that area - I think people fear Corbyn would offer a Merkel style invitation to all.

You can see it in his claim that the Beckett report shows they needed to explain their policies re. immigration better - no recognition at all that perhaps people just don't share his vision of Britain. No doubt his views are popular in his London Labour bubble and he's got a load of activists who can't leave their student union politics behind telling him he's wining the argument. Tragic as this Tory govt are as extreme as we've had and our country is becoming more and more divided between haves and have nots.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Like it or not for some people on here, immigration is a big issue for many voters in this country. That covers people from most of the political spectrum. So what does Jezza and his ex fancy piece, Abbott do? Join a refugee protest in Calais in support of the UK opening its border.
Got to be worth a few more votes.

Apparently he was mistaken for the British Prime minister

No wonder he was popular in Calais as they probably thought he could do something about it for them.

Cameron is letting 20,000 Syrians, mainly the ill and infirm and is now going to allow 3000 children up to 16yo with every possibility that their parents & siblings will be able to come along too.
DC complains about UK soldiers being sued but its under his watch this is happening and it is his Gov's MOD that has paid to 400 claimants £20m many just because its cheaper to do so, than contest the claim.

What DC does and very successfully is talk the talk but the reality is something completely different.

So, all the Calais migrants need to do is wait and the Tories will let them all in :roll:

Bobbinogs

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Like it or not for some people on here, immigration is a big issue for many voters in this country. That covers people from most of the political spectrum. So what does Jezza and his ex fancy piece, Abbott do? Join a refugee protest in Calais in support of the UK opening its border.
Got to be worth a few more votes.

Apparently he was mistaken for the British Prime minister

No wonder he was popular in Calais as they probably thought he could do something about it for them.

Cameron is letting 20,000 Syrians, mainly the ill and infirm and is now going to allow 3000 children up to 16yo with every possibility that their parents & siblings will be able to come along too.
DC complains about UK soldiers being sued but its under his watch this is happening and it is his Gov's MOD that has paid to 400 claimants £20m many just because its cheaper to do so, than contest the claim.

What DC does and very successfully is talk the talk but the reality is something completely different.

So, all the Calais migrants need to do is wait and the Tories will let them all in :roll:

Yes, I must admit that bit is puzzling me. DC repeatedly spouts the "we must be tougher and control this" whilst actually doing the opposite. His election mandate seemed to be all about bringing down mass immigration and yet it is spiraling ever upwards. Thing is, DC seems to be getting credit for being tough with JC being the big loser, not helped at all by his Calais stunt at the w/e. You would think that DC is an easy target on immigration given the general feeling in the country but, rather than focus on this, JC does the opposite by campaigning for more immigration, WTF???

mamba80

Everything Cameron says is pretty much what the electorate want to hear, meanwhile he does what he really wants to do or as i suspect he is very weak and just lets events over power him.

Also, a good judge of character..... perhaps he advised him on which pig gives the best XX ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... abuse.html

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Like it or not for some people on here, immigration is a big issue for many voters in this country. That covers people from most of the political spectrum. So what does Jezza and his ex fancy piece, Abbott do? Join a refugee protest in Calais in support of the UK opening its border.
Got to be worth a few more votes.

Apparently he was mistaken for the British Prime minister

No wonder he was popular in Calais as they probably thought he could do something about it for them.

Cameron is letting 20,000 Syrians, mainly the ill and infirm and is now going to allow 3000 children up to 16yo with every possibility that their parents & siblings will be able to come along too.
DC complains about UK soldiers being sued but its under his watch this is happening and it is his Gov's MOD that has paid to 400 claimants £20m many just because its cheaper to do so, than contest the claim.

What DC does and very successfully is talk the talk but the reality is something completely different.

So, all the Calais migrants need to do is wait and the Tories will let them all in :roll:

Hmm - not exactly Merkel style levels of immigrants is it. Also.note these appear to be those genuinely in need. So not inconsistent with not allowing uncontrolled levels of refugees in. Corbyn is proposing to let them.come here in very large numbers and would do if he could.

What option do.you prefer?

pinno

Not that I am backing him but he did say:

"It's a very strange magnet of desperation, a fetid swamp with foul water, and people living in tents in the middle of winter shows the level of desperation - we're talking 3,000 people. It's not very many."

I can't disagree with that sentiment but... they would have to be vetted and would it encourage more to flock there?

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Cameron is letting 20,000 Syrians, mainly the ill and infirm and is now going to allow 3000 children up to 16yo with every possibility that their parents & siblings will be able to come along too.
DC complains about UK soldiers being sued but its under his watch this is happening and it is his Gov's MOD that has paid to 400 claimants £20m many just because its cheaper to do so, than contest the claim.

What DC does and very successfully is talk the talk but the reality is something completely different.

So, all the Calais migrants need to do is wait and the Tories will let them all in :roll:

Hmm - not exactly Merkel style levels of immigrants is it. Also.note these appear to be those genuinely in need. So not inconsistent with not allowing uncontrolled levels of refugees in. Corbyn is proposing to let them.come here in very large numbers and would do if he could.

What option do.you prefer?

not really relevant, DC is in power and he is the one who went into the election promising to reduce net migration, he has failed spectacularly - Labour are not in power, so what a Corbyn Governamnt would or wouldnt do is unknown.

Net migration into UK exceeds anything Germany has seen.

But for the record..... 8hrs ago.
Speaking on ITV’s This Morning, Corbyn said he was not suggesting that all 9,000 people in the French camps at the border should be allowed into the UK but said Britain should do more to process the asylum claims of those with a family connection.

Would appear to be the Tories (actual) position, just a different place as to where the migrants will come from.

Stevo_666

We're not talking about overall net migration, we're talking about letting a specific group in - or not. We both know that we cannot stop EU migration currently.

As for how relevant Corbyns policies will be its all very wel, to say he isnt the one in power. People will decide how to vote based on what he says. The current opinion polls speak volumes.

finchy

Stevo 666 wrote:

The current opinion polls speak volumes.

The opinion polls are all over the place. They're averaging about 6 or 7% Tory lead. That doesn't really say much at all about anything.

Stevo_666

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

The current opinion polls speak volumes.

The opinion polls are all over the place. They're averaging about 6 or 7% Tory lead. That doesn't really say much at all about anything.

Oh really?
http://order-order.com/2016/01/04/corbyn-approval-rating-minus-32-with-yougov/
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2016/01/how-jeremy-corbyns-labour-faring-elections-so-far
http://uk.businessinsider.com/jeremy-corbyn-is-doing-terribly-in-polls-2015-12
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12082139/Is-Jeremy-Corbyn-doing-more-damage-to-Labour-than-Ed-Miliband.html

Although in the interests of balance
http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/no-jeremy-corbyn-is-not-the-worst-performing-leader-tim-farron-is--WJMepWqrwIe

finchy

Yeah, really.

Stevo_666

finchy wrote:

Yeah, really.

No not really. I'm talking about leader ratings - read my links.

Even if we consider the link you posted, remember what happened in those polls just beefore the GE. 'The shy tories'. So even before factoring that in, the tories have a clear lead. All as predicted

finchy

I've read a couple of your links. But there's a difference between people's approval of leadership style and what they think of somebody's policies (which is what you were talking about). Of course, they might still disapprove of JC's policies but disapprove of the Tories' even more, but that's another debate.

Have a look at some of those polls in more detail. The Tories do much better with older people and homeowners. Tenants are far more likely to vote Labour, and with the number of people priced out of the housing market making up a larger proportion of the electorate every single year, that could spell big trouble for the Tories. And that's before you take into account the fact that the economic headlines have been superficially positive over the past couple of years. With economic growth slowing down in the UK and across the world, people might start questioning neo-liberal dogma a bit more if you get 2 massive crashes in the space of a decade. What else will the Tories be able to fall back on if they can't claim to be The Party of Economic Wisdom and Brilliantness?

Stevo_666

finchy wrote:

I've read a couple of your links. But there's a difference between people's approval of leadership style and what they think of somebody's policies (which is what you were talking about). Of course, they might still disapprove of JC's policies but disapprove of the Tories' even more, but that's another debate.

Have a look at some of those polls in more detail. The Tories do much better with older people and homeowners. Tenants are far more likely to vote Labour, and with the number of people priced out of the housing market making up a larger proportion of the electorate every single year, that could spell big trouble for the Tories. And that's before you take into account the fact that the economic headlines have been superficially positive over the past couple of years. With economic growth slowing down in the UK and across the world, people might start questioning neo-liberal dogma a bit more if you get 2 massive crashes in the space of a decade. What else will the Tories be able to fall back on if they can't claim to be The Party of Economic Wisdom and Brilliantness?

Nice bit of wishful thinking. There is nothing new there that wasnt around last year other than economic slowdowns elsewhere in the world. So why did the tories win the last general election?

PS the offer of a bet on the next one still stands if you change your mind.

finchy

I've told you I don't gamble and I've told you why.

It only takes a swing of a few % to win an election. Why do you think that wouldn't happen if the economy hit the rocks again? And those slowdowns elsewhere in the world will hit us as well. I really can't see us going another 5 years without a major recession. 12 years between recessions is just too long a time, especially with the underlying fragility of our economy.

slowmart

interesting piece in today's Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016 ... endly-fire


The narrative for the historic tensions and events between the political establishment and the military are illuminating.

Stevo_666

finchy wrote:

I've told you I don't gamble and I've told you why.

It only takes a swing of a few % to win an election. Why do you think that wouldn't happen if the economy hit the rocks again? And those slowdowns elsewhere in the world will hit us as well. I really can't see us going another 5 years without a major recession. 12 years between recessions is just too long a time, especially with the underlying fragility of our economy.

Just an offer...

People on the whole are intelligent to distinguish between an economic problem that is largely driven by external factors such a the China slowdown of the lack of growth in EU, and one that is largely driven by government balls ups - such as the last Labour government overspending (and even leaving a note to tell us that there's no money left).

Anyway, sanity check time as you seem to be so keen to defend the current Labour party and Corbyn on a number of different issues. Given the policies that the parties currently have and the people in charge of each party, if there was a general election tomorrow - who would you vote for?

finchy

Stevo 666 wrote:

People on the whole are intelligent to distinguish between an economic problem that is largely driven by external factors such a the China slowdown of the lack of growth in EU, and one that is largely driven by government balls ups - such as the last Labour government overspending (and even leaving a note to tell us that there's no money left).

As I have argued before, it's not just about the party in charge, it's about our entire system and the real centres of power. I want to see our country become more like our northern European neighbours, not keep plodding on with the same old economic policies.

You say that Labour overspent, but how do you quantify that? Their spending was lower than many other countries that are doing fine and the UK did need investment at the time (and still does). It's all well and good to say that cutting tax is the recipe for success, but if you don't spend enough, things fall to pieces, you don't have a decent health or education system, etc.

Stevo 666 wrote:

Anyway, sanity check time as you seem to be so keen to defend the current Labour party and Corbyn on a number of different issues. Given the policies that the parties currently have and the people in charge of each party, if there was a general election tomorrow - who would you vote for?

Of the major parties in England, I'd go for Lib Dems, then Labour, then Tories, then UKIP. As I'm a believer in PR, I'd prefer a Lib Dem-Lab-SNP-PC-Green coalition to one party governing alone.

Basically, I think that the Tories are doing nothing to defuse the ticking time bombs that both of the major parties have contributed to setting. I don't trust them for a minute on education, health, environment, public transport, foreign affairs, energy... you know, all those things upon which we can base our future well-being. I don't have that much more faith in Labour, but of the 2 major parties, they are for me the lesser of 2 evils.

mamba80

Given the way the Tories destroy public services, lets take NHS direct for example, staffed by nurses and replace with new 111 service staffed by a computer - they were warned at the time this new service was second rate - then i d vote Labour

all the Tories do is protect their own, voting against (a labour motion) making ALL rented housing fit for human habitation - is that because so many MP's are BTL landlords?

My bet is safe Steve0, because people will eventually see through the Tories for what they are and DC knows it too, thats why he is messing with boundaries, student electoral registration and union levies, true democrate is your DC :shock:

tangled_metal

Sorry but the NHS direct service was poor at best out incompetent at worst. I've known people who've suffered after taking their advice and I have too. It was a screening service for GPs and A&E that under Labour just became a gatekeeper to keep patients from services. My experience and that of quite a few I've spoken to about it in the past.

Messing around with boundaries? Oh yes, what you should be saying is, let's keep them the same so they favour Labour effectively making the Tories need a bigger majority of the vote than Labour would to win a majority. Boundaries are so behind census and other population data that they need something doing to make things fairer. I'm not sure if Tories are doing it right but the current situation needs changing.

However I can see your point. Tories are changing it from what suits Labour to something that suits Tories. Bad Tories! They should leave a system so obviously unfair because it suits the main opponents to them.

Union levies? Is that to do with political funds? Making it opt in not out? Well, imagine if the board of directors of large companies decided that every employee contract had a small print saying "tick here if you don't want £30 a year going out of your wages to donate to the Tory party". Then all of a sudden Tories get a load of money from people who just might not have spotted the opt out and resulting in them donating to a political party they had no wish to. Just an idea to consider. IMHO any political levy should be something made by an individual without opt in or out. You want to donate to political party you do it yourself not through an organization that may use their mass influence not in your name.

I'm very wary about anything with opt outs. It is very easy to get caught out with the wording and sign up through your misunderstanding. I'm highly educated and yet I've found some such forms in confusing at times, requiring second or third readings to get right. I know quite a few people I've helped with such forms who I've had to really convince that they should tick when they believed it was the opposite.

mamba80

Tangled Metal wrote:

Sorry but the NHS direct service was poor at best out incompetent at worst. I've known people who've suffered after taking their advice and I have too. It was a screening service for GPs and A&E that under Labour just became a gatekeeper to keep patients from services. My experience and that of quite a few I've spoken to about it in the past.

when my daughter was 8 months old, she became ill, 2 or 3 visits to GP's and still recuring cough fever etc over the following w/e she developed a much higher than usual temp, phoned NHS direct, a NURSE rang ahead AE and ordered an ambulance, my daughter spent 4 days in hospital hooked up to antibiotics and made a full recovery.

Had we spoken to someone who is non med and reading from an algorithm, things might have turned out completely differently.

AE departments are full of the worried well (or drunks) in many cases if the patient is well enough to use a phone and go through being questioned by a nurse, then perhaps they should nt be at AE and instead a chemists or a minor injuries unit?
so perhaps you and your mates were not really that ill?

the way i see it, is that asking a non med trained person what is wrong, is very similar to asking Google.
the Tories introduced 111 to save money NOT to give us a better service, it is also shown to be referring to many to AE unnecessarily, so s double whammy.
Hunt is now saying 111 must be improved, bit late for the family and child from Cornwall.

So, what you are saying is a party like the Tories can give grace and favour to wealthy corporations and individuals, so ensuring their party has plenty of money for political campaigns, whilst a party like the Greens/liberals/ukip or labour are left to rely on donations from the working man in the street? OR they ve got to try and compete with the Tories for the corporates money ?...... an American system of Democracy ... no thanks - no one has to join a union especially one affiliated to labour but if they do, then its not unreasonable to give a levy to the party which they are affiliated too.

but the system i d like to see is public funding only, removing any political bias but i dont think that ll be a vote winner lol!

the tories are doing this to stuff labour and has nothing to do with freedom of choice.

Stevo_666

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

People on the whole are intelligent to distinguish between an economic problem that is largely driven by external factors such a the China slowdown of the lack of growth in EU, and one that is largely driven by government balls ups - such as the last Labour government overspending (and even leaving a note to tell us that there's no money left).

As I have argued before, it's not just about the party in charge, it's about our entire system and the real centres of power. I want to see our country become more like our northern European neighbours, not keep plodding on with the same old economic policies..

You say that Labour overspent, but how do you quantify that? Their spending was lower than many other countries that are doing fine and the UK did need investment at the time (and still does). It's all well and good to say that cutting tax is the recipe for success, but if you don't spend enough, things fall to pieces, you don't have a decent health or education system, etc.

Stevo 666 wrote:

Anyway, sanity check time as you seem to be so keen to defend the current Labour party and Corbyn on a number of different issues. Given the policies that the parties currently have and the people in charge of each party, if there was a general election tomorrow - who would you vote for?

Of the major parties in England, I'd go for Lib Dems, then Labour, then Tories, then UKIP. As I'm a believer in PR, I'd prefer a Lib Dem-Lab-SNP-PC-Green coalition to one party governing alone.

Basically, I think that the Tories are doing nothing to defuse the ticking time bombs that both of the major parties have contributed to setting. I don't trust them for a minute on education, health, environment, public transport, foreign affairs, energy... you know, all those things upon which we can base our future well-being. I don't have that much more faith in Labour, but of the 2 major parties, they are for me the lesser of 2 evils.

One at a time:
- Our Northern European neighbours, presumably the Scandies. Essentially free market economies with higher rates of VAT and income tax and higher social welfare payments. Only one of them in the Eurozone and the richest of the four only in the EEA. Not exactly a fundamental departure from the model. Expect those who have lived in Scandanavia and got cheap rent to weigh in any time now singing their praises...

- Labour oversepend. There is factual evidence for evidence for Labour overspend, but most tellingly Labour themselves have apologised for it:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/13/andy-burnham-apologises-labour-overspending

Your voting intentions. You've contradicted yourself massively - I've highlighted the two bits that are totally incompatible above The Lib Dems have the same number of seats as the DUP in Northern Ireland, who I don't recall ever being described a 'major party'...so I guess that means you're a Corbyn supporter by default?

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

My bet is safe Steve0, because people will eventually see through the Tories for what they are

Oh yeah our bet. The tories have been around for a long time in their current form, you think people would have seen through them by now if they were as you say they are. I mean, we only had a GE 8 month s ago and the tories won decisively. What am I missing here?

finchy

Stevo 666 wrote:

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

People on the whole are intelligent to distinguish between an economic problem that is largely driven by external factors such a the China slowdown of the lack of growth in EU, and one that is largely driven by government balls ups - such as the last Labour government overspending (and even leaving a note to tell us that there's no money left).

As I have argued before, it's not just about the party in charge, it's about our entire system and the real centres of power. I want to see our country become more like our northern European neighbours, not keep plodding on with the same old economic policies..

You say that Labour overspent, but how do you quantify that? Their spending was lower than many other countries that are doing fine and the UK did need investment at the time (and still does). It's all well and good to say that cutting tax is the recipe for success, but if you don't spend enough, things fall to pieces, you don't have a decent health or education system, etc.

Stevo 666 wrote:

Anyway, sanity check time as you seem to be so keen to defend the current Labour party and Corbyn on a number of different issues. Given the policies that the parties currently have and the people in charge of each party, if there was a general election tomorrow - who would you vote for?

Of the major parties in England, I'd go for Lib Dems, then Labour, then Tories, then UKIP. As I'm a believer in PR, I'd prefer a Lib Dem-Lab-SNP-PC-Green coalition to one party governing alone.

Basically, I think that the Tories are doing nothing to defuse the ticking time bombs that both of the major parties have contributed to setting. I don't trust them for a minute on education, health, environment, public transport, foreign affairs, energy... you know, all those things upon which we can base our future well-being. I don't have that much more faith in Labour, but of the 2 major parties, they are for me the lesser of 2 evils.

One at a time:
- Our Northern European neighbours, presumably the Scandies. Essentially free market economies with higher rates of VAT and income tax and higher social welfare payments. Only one of them in the Eurozone and the richest of the four only in the EEA. Not exactly a fundamental departure from the model. Expect those who have lived in Scandanavia and got cheap rent to weigh in any time now singing their praises...

- Labour oversepend. There is factual evidence for evidence for Labour overspend, but most tellingly Labour themselves have apologised for it:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/13/andy-burnham-apologises-labour-overspending

Your voting intentions. You've contradicted yourself massively - I've highlighted the two bits that are totally incompatible above The Lib Dems have the same number of seats as the DUP in Northern Ireland, who I don't recall ever being described a 'major party'...so I guess that means you're a Corbyn supporter by default?

When I say our northern neighbours, I'm talking culturally as much as geographically. So Benelux countries, Germany, Austria and Switzerland as well. Look at factors such as income inequality, etc. and there is a massive difference between them and us.

Labour have to play the game of apologising for their record, but can you tell us how much they should have spent? Obviously there were some fairly disastrous wastes of money (the NHS IT system, for example), but look at what our public infrastructure was like when they came in - crap. Obsolescent trains and buses, schools that were full of portakabins that cost a ton to heat in winter and then roasted in summers, etc. It's easy for the Tories to underspend and then criticise Labour for being profligate, but there's a reason that people were sick of the Tories by 1997 - they could see what the result of not spending was. I think we're probably going to learn that the hard way once again.

Lib Dems may only have the same number of seats as DUP, but they 7.9% of the vote. It'll take them a long time to recover, but I'd still trust them over Labour or the Tories.

Lookyhere

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

My bet is safe Steve0, because people will eventually see through the Tories for what they are

Oh yeah our bet. The tories have been around for a long time in their current form, you think people would have seen through them by now if they were as you say they are. I mean, we only had a GE 8 month s ago and the tories won decisively. What am I missing here?

They didnt win decisively, you r a figures man? even you can work out the % of the vote they won and that was on a low turn out too but a win is a win.

But i certainly wouldnt bet on a Labour victory but i d not be so smug Steve0 either.

with an economic down turn around the corner, it might well look as if we had all this austerity for nothing, stale bread today, promise of rotten bread tomo!

With an out euro vote and economic uncertainty that will bring, things could look very bad for the Tories

pinno

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... ervyn-king

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ba ... ot-4891142

Heath, Thatcher, Major - all fell foul when it came to Europe and the Europeans are dragging their feet over Cameroons 5 point plan so maybe he will follow in the footsteps of his predecessors.

ballysmate

Pinno wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/29/labour-government-not-responsible-crash-bank-england-governor-mervyn-king

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ba ... ot-4891142

Heath, Thatcher, Major - all fell foul when it came to Europe and the Europeans are dragging their feet over Cameroons 5 point plan so maybe he will follow in the footsteps of his predecessors.

Perhaps they are. But a Brexit doesn't suit EU either. There WILL be a referendum and the less Cameron achieves, the more likely an OUT vote.