Mad money, and politics and history and international law, and climate change, and Brexit, and Chinese imports, and Diane Abbott, and Donald Trump, and the General Election, and the NHS.

[Icke's Lizard 2,452]

11 minutes ago, Flea said:

My hope is it won't be 5 years.

Ideally what I would like to see is that the Conservatives get back in, however with either a similar or less kind of power that they have now. At the same time Labour take a battering in the polls, possibly by a flavour of the month party that will become irrelevant quickly, (like the Brexit one) and that their loss is so great it forces Corbyn, Mcdonnell and co out. They then get a centralised leader in that can unite its own party and the wider public.

At the same time, the Tory's hold a very weak leadership and bumble through Brexit. They get it done, however only just, with so little support that they have to call another general election within 18 months / 2 years. The Brexit party becomes null and void as we have now had it, Labour are on a crest of a wave with a new popular leader. The public are pissed at the Conservatives for being spineless, weak and self serving, and in this election Labour finally take back power.

Id take 2 more years of the Tory's if it rids Labour of their current problems. 

We've had this scenario for the past 10yrs to be fair. 

The Fib Dems were flavour of the month, helped the Tories get their feet under the table. 

Ukip have been and look almost gone, 

people wanted Milliband gone because he couldn't eat a bacon butty ffs!! 

This is the time for change and I believe it when labour say it. 

Edited December 3 by Icke's Lizard

[Erik Everhard 3,969]

6 minutes ago, 154 Hopper Avenue said:

Let's assume the figures are accurate. Do you trust them to ensure we see the investment needed to restore our public services, from the police to libraries and everything in-between, to the levels they inherited in 2010? I don't. Their track record suggests my view is well-founded. 

Do you trust their assurances that they won't hand more and more of those services over to private concerns? I don't. It's what they do. And always have done.

Do you think that, as a result, we'll see another Carillon? The 'largest ever trading liquidation in the UK'? I do. Again, recent history supports that view. 

Do you think we'll see more and more privatisation of the NHS? I do. Every single statistic and figure from the last 9 years supports that view. People like Raab can try and run away from documents they've put their name to in the past but we know they support privatisation of the NHS, two thirds of hospitals being privately-run in his case.

Do you think Johnson will continue to lie as he has to date? I do.

 

They are all the same one way or another so my answer is no, I don't trust Johnson as far as I can throw him. But I don't trust Labour either. I have no doubt that public services would receive more funding under Labour. The usual rule is that they'll tax you more but you'll see more for your money. Tories will tax you less but they won't spend the same. That's the main simplified difference between the two. Hey, I'd benefit in quite a few ways, on paper that is. I'd ha e better services like libraries which I use a lot, better healthcare which I so use th NHS a lot, unfortunately and fortunately if you get my drift and perhaps, maybe they'll find a mass transport system for Leeds, but I won't hold my breath because it's been needed for the last 25 years and no government has done jack **** about implementing one which means Leeds is the largest city in Europe to not have one and boy oh boy don't we know it. Plus, at the same time there are huge new development s popping up all over th city which will probably bring on somewhere on the region of 50 000 new jobs. Great, only you'll have to set off at 5 on the morning to get there and not set off back until after 8 at night.

[154 Hopper Avenue 304]

4 minutes ago, Icke's Lizard said:

We've had this scenario for the past 10yrs to be fair. 

The Fib Dems were flavour of the month, helped the Tories get their feet under the table. 

Ukip have been and look almost gone, 

people wanted Milliband gone because he couldn't eat a bacon butty ffs!! 

This is the time for change and I believe it when labour say it. 

That's precisely the point for me too. 

[154 Hopper Avenue 304]

2 minutes ago, Erik Everhard said:

They are all the same one way or another so my answer is no, I don't trust Johnson as far as I can throw him. But I don't trust Labour either. I have no doubt that public services would receive more funding under Labour. The usual rule is that they'll tax you more but you'll see more for your money. Tories will tax you less but they won't spend the same. That's the main simplified difference between the two. Hey, I'd benefit in quite a few ways, on paper that is. I'd ha e better services like libraries which I use a lot, better healthcare which I so use th NHS a lot, unfortunately and fortunately if you get my drift and perhaps, maybe they'll find a mass transport system for Leeds, but I won't hold my breath because it's been needed for the last 25 years and no government has done jack **** about implementing one which means Leeds is the largest city in Europe to not have one and boy oh boy don't we know it. Plus, at the same time there are huge new development s popping up all over th city which will probably bring on somewhere on the region of 50 000 new jobs. Great, only you'll have to set off at 5 on the morning to get there and not set off back until after 8 at night.

Isn't that precisely the point of the shift in the Labour party. They'll actually do it. And yes, tax some to pay for it. I say that as someone who will pay more. Im content to do that if it means rebalancing society in a way that's fairer.

[nw3casc1 508]

Town travel to Yeovil this Saturday.

Take a point now..

 

 

[Erik Everhard 3,969]

9 minutes ago, 154 Hopper Avenue said:

That's precisely the point for me too. 

How will Labour pay for all their election promises on their manifesto?

The answer is they can't.

Their manifesto is unrealistic and if they did attempt to  achieve all of their promises we'd be bankrupt 

Edited December 3 by Erik Everhard

[Flea 5,168]

3 minutes ago, Icke's Lizard said:

We've had this scenario for the past 10yrs to be fair. 

The Fib Dems were flavour of the month, helped the Tories get their feet under the table. 

Ukip have been and look almost gone, 

people wanted Milliband gone because he couldn't eat a bacon butty ffs!! 

This is the time for change and I believe it when labour say it. 

Apart from you are missing one thing - the past 5 years with Corbyn has seen Labours popularity plummet. 

Corbyn is the biggest plus and asset the Tory's have. Get rid of him and his fellow extreme left and quite simply the Tory's are screwed.

Lets be clear, this Tory government of the past decade has gone from one shambles to another, has been an utter farce and is probably the worst this country has ever seen. In this time, its main opposition however has not only failed to capitalise on such incompetence they have gone backwards themselves. 

I really don't understand how so many rightly call out the far right for the nut jobs they are and will rightly not vote for them, yet those same people have no issue with the far left. Extremism on either side of the spectrum is not viable or the answer. 

[chrisbo61 1,231]

2 minutes ago, Erik Everhard said:

How will Labour pay for all their election promises on their manifesto?

The answer is they can't.

Their manifesto is unrealistic and if they did attempt to a hieve all of their promises we'd be bankrupt 

Research government finances to avoid making statements like that!

[chrisbo61 1,231]

3 minutes ago, Flea said:

Apart from you are missing one thing - the past 5 years with Corbyn has seen Labours popularity plummet. 

Corbyn is the biggest plus and asset the Tory's have. Get rid of him and his fellow extreme left and quite simply the Tory's are screwed.

Lets be clear, this Tory government of the past decade has gone from one shambles to another, has been an utter farce and is probably the worst this country has ever seen. In this time, its main opposition however has not only failed to capitalise on such incompetence they have gone backwards themselves. 

I really don't understand how so many rightly call out the far right for the nut jobs they are and will rightly not vote for them, yet those same people have no issue with the far left. Extremism on either side of the spectrum is not viable or the answer. 

Thing is though the labour parties policies are not far left, they are the norm in most of europe and particularly in countries that consistently come top for standard of living, quality of life etc!

[Flea 5,168]

4 minutes ago, chrisbo61 said:

Thing is though the labour parties policies are not far left, they are the norm in most of europe and particularly in countries that consistently come top for standard of living, quality of life etc!

Yup, not arguing with that. I have no problem with the policies (albeit I think a few are not achievable with the figures quoted). I have said several times that I prefer Labour's policies and manifesto and trust them more than the Tory's overall. 

The issue I have with Labour is simply down to the idiot in charge and those like him that are turning the voters away. 

I trust Corbyn and McDonnell less than I do Boris. I am against those that are far right and far left. The policies are not far left but the people that would implement them are.  

Edited December 3 by Flea

[Icke's Lizard 2,452]

1 minute ago, chrisbo61 said:

Thing is though the labour parties policies are not far left, they are the norm in most of europe and particularly in countries that consistently come top for standard of living, quality of life etc!

They are great policies. 

I think what let's labour down and is far left, are a lot of people on twitter who can hide and spout off, abuse behind a keyboard. Many of them are Corbyn supporters. 

Im not a hypocrite, I've laughed and took the p*$$ out of the odd person but it is a problem which is very prevalent. But how do you police the internet!!! And is this really Corbyn's fault? I say no, but again I aren't thick enough to deny it doesn't go on from his supporters. 

Yes we've got to be angry, but some overstep the line and it's Corbyn who takes the flak which is unfair. 

[Flea 5,168]

3 minutes ago, Icke's Lizard said:

I think what let's labour down and is far left, are a lot of people on twitter who can hide and spout off, abuse behind a keyboard. Many of them are Corbyn supporters. 

Like a Corbyn supporter intentionally and deliberately mis-represneting a joke from years ago, editing it, then promoting it as being racist, even though he knows the context of it to be a joke, simply because that person said he found Corbyn to be anti-semetic? 

Do you think those Labour supporters do more damage or good for the party? 

[154 Hopper Avenue 304]

2 minutes ago, Flea said:

Yup, not arguing with that. I have no problem with the policies (albeit I think a few are not achievable with the figures quoted). I have said several times that I prefer Labour's policies and manifesto and trust them more than the Tory's overall. 

The issue I have with Labour is simply down to the idiot in charge and those like him that are turning the voters away. 

I trust Corbyn and McDonnell less than I do Boris. I am against those that are far right and far left. The policies are not far left but the people that would implement them are.  

What do you think he'll do other than implement those policies? I ask as, were it not for him being leader, we wouldn't have those policies. He's flawed in many ways. He believes in things I don't. I understand some of the concerns about foreign policy but genuinely suspect that he'd wake up to the reality of those areas fairly quickly. No PM is or will ever be perfect. But if you like the policies you like what he believes in and the direction for the party he ensured. IL is right. I won't and don't let some of the more shrill voices on the Left get in the way of what I think a Labour government will do. Those voices have always been there. Anyone who has been a party member and supporter in the past knows that. They'll never go away.
I would genuinely urge you to consider the logic of voting for a party you rightly regard as a shambles when policies you like are there waiting.

Whatever you think of Corbyn and McDonnell, remember that, if he is the next PM you get a very broad range of MPs sat around him. You get Progress members, Labour First members, essentially 'New Labour' MPs. You don't get the Politburo.
 

Not a dig, I just don't get voting for things you really, really don't want mate. 

[Icke's Lizard 2,452]

3 minutes ago, Flea said:

Like a Corbyn supporter intentionally and deliberately mis-represneting a joke from years ago, editing it, then promoting it as being racist, even though he knows the context of it to be a joke, simply because that person said he found Corbyn to be anti-semetic? 

Do you think those Labour supporters do more damage or good for the party? 

Aside from your argument with a certain user.... 

I think these supporters do harm because it often gets brought up in the media and is extra ammo for the Tories to use. 

I've no problem with Mickey taking if it's a 2-way thing and can be received as well as dished out. 

I just see a lot of mob mentality and the quote tweet function is their go-to attack method to rope in their followers. 

Again, I've done it. But I've never been banned and I don't set out everyday to waste my time doing it on twitter allday like some of these losers do. 

[Flea 5,168]

30 minutes ago, 154 Hopper Avenue said:

What do you think he'll do other than implement those policies? 

 

Im against all forms of extremism. 

The policys are good and are the best proposed of every party, however I still wouldn't say they are 100% what I'd go for - they are simply better than other parties however.

The concern I have is other than the policies is how things go both within and outside of the UK with him as a leader. I think having someone in charge who has failed to criticise hostile government's poisoning people on our streets for example shows weak leadership. 

On a personal POV, I view everything Corbyn does as being delaying, dithering and frustrating. We should be doing everything possible to avoid war or firing off a weapon, however at the same time it needs to be "on the table" as nothing more but a deterrent from hostile governments. Under Corbyn hostile governments would know Trident would NEVER be used. We should hope to god it never gets used, however knowing it won't would weaken our hand.

If we leave the EU, which I do think we ultimately will, we also need a leader who is respected, can stand up for the country and drive a good deal. Nothing to me says Corbyn is this man. He can't even nail his colours to the mast on if he wants to stay or remain in the EU. Its gutless. If he came out and said "I would rather we left/remained, however I will champion whatever the people vote for" then that would be something, however he has already shown he doesn't care what the people voted for and still wont pick a side. 

Socialism to me doesn't work. He is an extreme left socialist. The Labour policies are great however they are also financially unviable. I gave my thoughts on slight workable tweeks I'd have done on other pages (Instead of cutting the working week, make wages better and tax those working OT less, and instead of free broadband for everyone putting more computers in schools and feeding those children in poverty) that would be the first step in the right direction that could be financially viable, compared to the laughable figures given in the manifesto. 

Instead of this "We will tax the company's more" line, what it should be is "We will be telling the company's they need to be paying their staff more, and if they refuse and we have to subsidise their workers through tax credits, we will be fining/taxing them extra". Ultimately if we give those working more disposable income it gives a boost to the economy. We can do this by making sure those working get a fair and proper wage, without taxing the same company's more. If a company saw its tax bill slashed by 20% but were forced at the same time to increase their wages by 20%, then the economy would probably be better off, as that extra 20% in the workers pocket goes on helping them get fed and spend on disposable items, which in its turn creates more jobs etc...

At the moment we tax company's that pay **** wages the same as every other company. The government then top up workers wages with various credits. So we are pretty much losing all that money anyhow. Lets change how we do things in a manner that puts a boost in the economy however, and not punish those that work in it. 

 

It does also sadly come down to a degree of trust and personality. I simply don't trust Corbyn. I don't like his extreme leanings or how under his watch his followers believe character assignations of anyone who dare speak out is fair game. Labour have lost a lot of very good and loyal members, both normal voters and those MPs and in politics under him. The extremists now hold the power unofficially in the party. Corbyn is surrounding himself at the top with those that share his extreme views and the party is creeping day by day further to the left. 

If he was gone (and McDonnall and the SJW's that help peddle the extremism) and a more centralist leader was in charge, with some of these policies, slightly changed so they are actually realistic in being achieved, then I would struggle to understand why someone would not vote for them. 

At the moment Labour has a major problem with its own supporters attacking fellow Labour supporters, or those that are swing voters. I went from being a Labour supporter to being a swing voter under Corbyn. Due to Robert White, I went from being a swing voter who may have voted for Labour just because of my hatred of the Tories, to voting for a different party. I know several others who cant vote for Labour under Corbyn due to his leadership of the party or the aggressive nature of his supporters. I know 3 people on my street who were put off from voting Labour by the Labour vote canvassers when they came knocking last week - as instead of talking about what Labour would do, they were more interested in smearing mud about the opposition. Its dirty politics and its tiring. 

Edited December 3 by Flea

[Flea 5,168]

18 minutes ago, Icke's Lizard said:

Aside from your argument with a certain user.... 

I think these supporters do harm because it often gets brought up in the media and is extra ammo for the Tories to use. 

I've no problem with Mickey taking if it's a 2-way thing and can be received as well as dished out. 

I just see a lot of mob mentality and the quote tweet function is their go-to attack method to rope in their followers. 

Again, I've done it. But I've never been banned and I don't set out everyday to waste my time doing it on twitter allday like some of these losers do. 

100% agreed. The damage the likes of Robert White and his ilk are doing to the party is huge, however they simply don't see it. They attack those that are not only supporters of other parties, but those that are neutral, or even fellow supporters if they don't' follow their exact views.

The Labour party have shown under the current leadership that they are happy for their supporters to lie and twist and try destroy other peoples reputations. Now ask yourself why a floating voter would want to align themselves with that party as a result. 

These individuals are a massive danger. The extreme left are no better than the extreme right. 

[Bubba 1,480]

The question is what will happen to them should a) Labour lose the election and b) JC stands down? I suppose, thanks to Momentum, they could just elect another hard leftie as leader and the cycle begins again.

[Flea 5,168]

Just now, Bubba said:

The question is what will happen to them should a) Labour lose the election and b) JC stands down? I suppose, thanks to Momentum, they could just elect another hard leftie as leader and the cycle begins again.

Thats a danger/possibility. The problem we currently have is that JC is surrounding himself with those extremists. It is cult like behaviour and it is sadly becoming worse.

A centre left leader and Labour are the peoples party. The biggest fight for Labour now is making sure they get the right people in once this current nut job goes. Under JC there has been a huge purge of the sensible in Labour in favour for the extremists. Once he is removed then they also need to keep up with a de-radicalisation of those that have crept in. 

 

[Nick 1,413]

37 minutes ago, Icke's Lizard said:

They are great policies. 

I think what let's labour down and is far left, are a lot of people on twitter who can hide and spout off, abuse behind a keyboard. Many of them are Corbyn supporters. 

Im not a hypocrite, I've laughed and took the p*$$ out of the odd person but it is a problem which is very prevalent. But how do you police the internet!!! And is this really Corbyn's fault? I say no, but again I aren't thick enough to deny it doesn't go on from his supporters. 

Yes we've got to be angry, but some overstep the line and it's Corbyn who takes the flak which is unfair. 

No you don’t have to be angry..all that does is alienate people. We need to stop making enemies of one section of the population or another 

there are some policies I like .. Nationalisation of water and electricity.. as they are monopolies 

but I don’t support rail or post office or of the broad band.. 

I believe in investment in police army health care and social welfare but it can’t be a blank check 

the ambition should be about creating better paying job and increasing everbodies standard of living.. 

but lastly I want government to focus on a long term goal of a sustainable population and thereby a sustainable economy and planet .. which do far nobody even talks about.. just populistic slogans in climate change and again just attacking small group of the population .. we need to all take responsibility and stop scrape goating others 

[greg45 1,208]

Corbyn is a backbencher at heart on the far left of his party. Usually a backbencher's role is to come up with slightly crazy stuff, some of which may filter into the centre of the party, being diluted to something more sensible along the way.

I really do admire his principles in that he's continued to behave in the same way as party leader as he did on the backbenches. But he has to realise (as do the Labour party and their supporters) that having someone like him actually in charge doesn't work in terms of getting the level of support required to win a majority government (or any government at all, as the last few years have shown). 

If Labour do somehow sneak into power it will be in spite of Jeremy Corbyn, not because of him.

[Shaytrev 2,681]

2 hours ago, chrisbo61 said:

Yeh because not voting really tells them eh!

By not voting, you have literally no voice, you are silent, insignificant!

Not voting is in essence agreeing with the status quo( whatever you want!) It changes nothing.

Not as bad as  voting for Brexit and being ignored. Hypocritical Labourites.

[Hoddie 1,780]

You guys are clearly missing the point. Labour elected Corbyn to be leader. He's espousing Labour policies. That's it. Either vote for them or not. Or should they tell you what you want to hear, get elected and then implement their original policies anyway? After all, that's what the Tories do every time (no increase in VAT, no top down reorganisation of the NHS, nobody will lose out with Universal Credit, more social housing, etc., etc.).

[greg45 1,208]

4 minutes ago, Hoddie said:

You guys are clearly missing the point. Labour elected Corbyn to be leader. He's espousing Labour policies. That's it. Either vote for them or not. Or should they tell you what you want to hear, get elected and then implement their original policies anyway? After all, that's what the Tories do every time (no increase in VAT, no top down reorganisation of the NHS, nobody will lose out with Universal Credit, more social housing, etc., etc.).

It's a stupid situation - if he doesn't show a willingness to temper his policies during election campaigns he'll never get in power, yet it's admirable that he doesn't do that. But if people don't agree with his policies they aren't going to vote him in for admiring that he sticks to his principles.

As ever let's not forget that he was elected to be leader by a hardline set of members, not by the many millions of voters they will need to win an election. Sounds like the few ruining it for the many 

Edited December 3 by greg45

[Hoddie 1,780]

Just now, greg45 said:

It's a stupid situation - if he doesn't show a willingness to temper his policies during election campaigns he'll never get in power, yet it's admirable that he doesn't do that. But if people don't agree with his policies they aren't going to vote him in for admiring that he sticks to his principles.

As ever let's not forget that he was elected to be leader by a hardline set of members, not by the many millions of voters they will need to win an election. Sounds like the few ruining it for the many 

If not enough people support his policies then he shouldn't get in, should he?

[greg45 1,208]

3 minutes ago, Hoddie said:

If not enough people support his policies then he shouldn't get in, should he?

Agreed, I'm not saying otherwise. I'm saying that his outright refusal to move from his own way of doing things is preventing him from becoming prime minister.