Telegraph leader going for Corbyn with a hard hitting article by a Munich survivor
Yawn.
Is that how you react to someone who survived an atrocity.
It’s how I’m reacting to you.
Not sure what Big G said to warrant that....
Big G is a nice guy and is usually polite, so should be treated politely.
Yawn is a rude way to put it but a sentiment of so what is exactly my reaction as well.
There is a scathing video online of an American Jewish guy scolding Margaret Hodge for her ridiculous comparison and asking for her to be kicked out the Labour party under their rules against anti semitism.
Despite the strength of his words and the horrors in his past of the people who are backing Hodge and opposed to Corbyn don't give a damn what he thinks or says and the feeling is probably largely returned the other way in regards to this Munich survivor.
I asume the same would happen in French, Irish, Dutch and other EU ports. The voters across Europe would be furious with the political classes, not just in the UK
I'm sorry gentlemen but this exchange makes me sad. It encapsulates two consistent misconceptions that the Conservatives have had since day one, and it's depressing how difficult they are to shift. They are:
1) If anything bad happens, it's the EU's fault. 2) Everything bad that happens in the UK will be reflected by something equally bad in the EU.
Nobody here is capable of understanding two basic things, namely:
a) Brexit, even in an optimistic scenario, involves some economic pain. If we are lucky it'll be invisible: lower growth but still growing, minor inconveniences, etc. If we are unlucky it'll be the death of British industries, and Big G's children will have to become taxi drivers. b) The population differences between the UK and the EU-27 (65million vs ~480million) means that the pain will not be evenly spread: we will suffer more than them. We are severing 27 connections, they are severing one each.
I asume the same would happen in French, Irish, Dutch and other EU ports. The voters across Europe would be furious with the political classes, not just in the UK
I'm sorry gentlemen but this exchange makes me sad. It encapsulates two consistent misconceptions that the Conservatives have had since day one, and it's depressing how difficult they are to shift. They are:
1) If anything bad happens, it's the EU's fault. 2) Everything bad that happens in the UK will be reflected by something equally bad in the EU.
Nobody here is capable of understanding two basic things, namely:
a) Brexit, even in an optimistic scenario, involves some economic pain. If we are lucky it'll be invisible: lower growth but still growing, minor inconveniences, etc. If we are unlucky it'll be the death of British industries, and Big G's children will have to become taxi drivers. b) The population differences between the UK and the EU-27 (65million vs ~480million) means that the pain will not be evenly spread: we will suffer more than them. We are severing 27 connections, they are severing one each.
So the EU want economic Armageddon for Europe. And some people think we should stay in their club?
Brexit means Brexit.
There's nothing clever in that phrase. Not in those who coined it, and not in those who think they are throwing in back in someone else's face. It pretends inevitability of specific outcomes, when even if certain ones were and are more likely and people, like me for instance, should have been more cognizant of that, are still not inevitable so as a retort it is just bloody silly.
You cancel your gym membership don't complain that you're not allowed in the gym anymore.
The lies of Remainers on full display. Free trade, no free movement, no budget contributions, no foreign law - its called a Free Trade Agreement, which is exactly what countries all over the World regularly sign with each other. Pretending that it is somehow unreasonable just shows how low the Remainers have sunk in their obsession with the EU empire.
It has been noted that Corbyn can't be shamed into anything. He is not ashamed of anything he has done, however repugnant.
I do find it surprising though that not a single Labour MP has been shamed into leaving a party led by him.
A trickle might become a flood, but it would need a single drop to flow first...
John Woodcock
Woodcock probably left because he was under investigation for doing something wrong.
Note he has not rushed to get that independent investigation and managed to stay in the Labour party before that.
Not that anybody cares about his potential victim, I assume she should be ignored so the right wing press have more ammo against Corbyn.
Maybe alleged should appear
I think I was hoping the probably in the first sentence covered the entire sentence. So the probably is in regard to 'leaving because he did something wrong' rather than he is probably leaving because he definitely did something wrong.
Although English isn't my strongest subject so you may well be right.
I asume the same would happen in French, Irish, Dutch and other EU ports. The voters across Europe would be furious with the political classes, not just in the UK
I'm sorry gentlemen but this exchange makes me sad. It encapsulates two consistent misconceptions that the Conservatives have had since day one, and it's depressing how difficult they are to shift. They are:
1) If anything bad happens, it's the EU's fault. 2) Everything bad that happens in the UK will be reflected by something equally bad in the EU.
Nobody here is capable of understanding two basic things, namely:
a) Brexit, even in an optimistic scenario, involves some economic pain. If we are lucky it'll be invisible: lower growth but still growing, minor inconveniences, etc. If we are unlucky it'll be the death of British industries, and Big G's children will have to become taxi drivers. b) The population differences between the UK and the EU-27 (65million vs ~480million) means that the pain will not be evenly spread: we will suffer more than them. We are severing 27 connections, they are severing one each.
I broadly agree, except that our trade isn't evenly distributed across all 27. We do the square root of fuck all trade with the minnows. Our major EU trading partners aren't hard to figure out.
Labour actually attracted more working class support under Corbyn, that isn't the point, these wealthy people don't want Labour looking after the working classes, they want Tristram looked after and they will keep writing angry tweets and columns until they get it.
The thing that seems to unite populists on the left and the right is the belief that they represent the interests of the common man more than the 'professional' politicians they've usurped. Do they really care whether it's true, or are they more interested in getting one over on Tristram?
Isn't that what the centrists keep banging on about as well?
The post I was responding too, although it is far from unique on here, newspapers and twitter, is another one complaining about Labour not representing the working class anymore, for a lot of people the answer here is to move back and be more right wing, so a move to the centre, because these politicians on the right of Labour represent real Labour working class values rather than the 'metropolitan Islington elite'
It is rubbish, they don't care about working class people they don't care about anybody but themselves, if all the working classes started voting Labour and being delighted with Corbyn they would still vote against Labour because they don't like Labour.
I asume the same would happen in French, Irish, Dutch and other EU ports. The voters across Europe would be furious with the political classes, not just in the UK
I'm sorry gentlemen but this exchange makes me sad. It encapsulates two consistent misconceptions that the Conservatives have had since day one, and it's depressing how difficult they are to shift. They are:
1) If anything bad happens, it's the EU's fault. 2) Everything bad that happens in the UK will be reflected by something equally bad in the EU.
Nobody here is capable of understanding two basic things, namely:
a) Brexit, even in an optimistic scenario, involves some economic pain. If we are lucky it'll be invisible: lower growth but still growing, minor inconveniences, etc. If we are unlucky it'll be the death of British industries, and Big G's children will have to become taxi drivers. b) The population differences between the UK and the EU-27 (65million vs ~480million) means that the pain will not be evenly spread: we will suffer more than them. We are severing 27 connections, they are severing one each.
Well - I was just about to switch the light off but feel I must respond.
I want a deal, no deal is not acceptable to me. I have stated many times how Boris FO to Airbus infuriated me and I despise Farage and all he stands for
The point I was making is that a no deal would cause havoc and anger across Europe and the political classes would pay a price on both sides of the channel.
As far as my children are concerned one is 52 and lives and works in Canada, my daughter who is 47 is a civil servant and my youngest who is 43 is an IT network manager. My son in law is nearly 60 and is a senior Airbus engineer and my youngest son's partner is in the police service
So I have no concerns for my children's employment and my grandchildren will do just fine
I asume the same would happen in French, Irish, Dutch and other EU ports. The voters across Europe would be furious with the political classes, not just in the UK
I'm sorry gentlemen but this exchange makes me sad. It encapsulates two consistent misconceptions that the Conservatives have had since day one, and it's depressing how difficult they are to shift. They are:
1) If anything bad happens, it's the EU's fault. 2) Everything bad that happens in the UK will be reflected by something equally bad in the EU.
Nobody here is capable of understanding two basic things, namely:
a) Brexit, even in an optimistic scenario, involves some economic pain. If we are lucky it'll be invisible: lower growth but still growing, minor inconveniences, etc. If we are unlucky it'll be the death of British industries, and Big G's children will have to become taxi drivers. b) The population differences between the UK and the EU-27 (65million vs ~480million) means that the pain will not be evenly spread: we will suffer more than them. We are severing 27 connections, they are severing one each.
It has been noted that Corbyn can't be shamed into anything. He is not ashamed of anything he has done, however repugnant.
I do find it surprising though that not a single Labour MP has been shamed into leaving a party led by him.
A trickle might become a flood, but it would need a single drop to flow first...
John Woodcock
Woodcock probably left because he was under investigation for doing something wrong.
Note he has not rushed to get that independent investigation and managed to stay in the Labour party before that.
Not that anybody cares about his potential victim, I assume she should be ignored so the right wing press have more ammo against Corbyn.
Maybe alleged should appear
I think I was hoping the probably in the first sentence covered the entire sentence. So the probably is in regard to 'leaving because he did something wrong' rather than he is probably leaving because he definitely did something wrong.
Although English isn't my strongest subject so you may well be right.
So the EU want economic Armageddon for Europe. And some people think we should stay in their club?
Brexit means Brexit.
There's nothing clever in that phrase. Not in those who coined it, and not in those who think they are throwing in back in someone else's face. It pretends inevitability of specific outcomes, when even if certain ones were and are more likely and people, like me for instance, should have been more cognizant of that, are still not inevitable so as a retort it is just bloody silly.
You cancel your gym membership don't complain that you're not allowed in the gym anymore.
The lies of Remainers on full display. Free trade, no free movement, no budget contributions, no foreign law - its called a Free Trade Agreement, which is exactly what countries all over the World regularly sign with each other. Pretending that it is somehow unreasonable just shows how low the Remainers have sunk in their obsession with the EU empire.
Free trade ≠ frictionless trade. This is one of the the major lies of omission of the Leave campaign, who simultaneously said we'd leave the single market while also implying there would be no new trade barriers with the rest of Europe.
I asume the same would happen in French, Irish, Dutch and other EU ports. The voters across Europe would be furious with the political classes, not just in the UK
I'm sorry gentlemen but this exchange makes me sad. It encapsulates two consistent misconceptions that the Conservatives have had since day one, and it's depressing how difficult they are to shift. They are:
1) If anything bad happens, it's the EU's fault. 2) Everything bad that happens in the UK will be reflected by something equally bad in the EU.
Nobody here is capable of understanding two basic things, namely:
a) Brexit, even in an optimistic scenario, involves some economic pain. If we are lucky it'll be invisible: lower growth but still growing, minor inconveniences, etc. If we are unlucky it'll be the death of British industries, and Big G's children will have to become taxi drivers. b) The population differences between the UK and the EU-27 (65million vs ~480million) means that the pain will not be evenly spread: we will suffer more than them. We are severing 27 connections, they are severing one each.
How does this work in India and China?
I don't recall either being in the EU.
You thought they were?
Nope, but as neither India or China were in the EU, I cannot see any lessons for Brexit.
I asume the same would happen in French, Irish, Dutch and other EU ports. The voters across Europe would be furious with the political classes, not just in the UK
I'm sorry gentlemen but this exchange makes me sad. It encapsulates two consistent misconceptions that the Conservatives have had since day one, and it's depressing how difficult they are to shift. They are:
1) If anything bad happens, it's the EU's fault. 2) Everything bad that happens in the UK will be reflected by something equally bad in the EU.
Nobody here is capable of understanding two basic things, namely:
a) Brexit, even in an optimistic scenario, involves some economic pain. If we are lucky it'll be invisible: lower growth but still growing, minor inconveniences, etc. If we are unlucky it'll be the death of British industries, and Big G's children will have to become taxi drivers. b) The population differences between the UK and the EU-27 (65million vs ~480million) means that the pain will not be evenly spread: we will suffer more than them. We are severing 27 connections, they are severing one each.
I broadly agree, except that our trade isn't evenly distributed across all 27. We do the square root of fuck all trade with the minnows. Our major EU trading partners aren't hard to figure out.
Except Ireland, which, while a minnow, is the key to the whole thing.
Many years ago Labour used to be the party of the working man, now it is the party of ponces.
I assume the final straw was when we lost people like working class champion and the opposite of poncey Tristram Hunt, real rough working class heroes like Tristram have been cast aside whilst poncey rich types who think of the working classes as peasants like Dennis Skinner have had their ideas come to the fore...
Labour should be the party of Tristram's or what is it for?
The reason there is so much anger at Labour is because they don't represent certain sections of wealthy middle classes that they used too, represented by people like Tristram and ex Labour voters on here. You can't exactly complain that Labour don't represent wealthy people anymore so they claim their annoyance is based on working class voters. Labour had been losing plenty of working class support previously and nobody cared outside of the ability to win seats. You'll forgive me for thinking it is another excuse for those who have no real interest in the working classes to have a go at Corbyn.
Labour actually attracted more working class support under Corbyn, that isn't the point, these wealthy people don't want Labour looking after the working classes, they want Tristram looked after and they will keep writing angry tweets and columns until they get it.
What's Tristram done to you? You make my point.
Tristram is an almost comedy opposite of working class, he is the type of voter we have lost and why there is so much anger in the media and among some celebrities at Labour. The actual working classes are more supportive of Labour, but that doesn't matter because they are a weapon to make a point rather than an actual problem in people's eyes.
Ask yourself this would any of the people complaining about Corbyn's Labour not representing the working classes vote for and support Corbyn's Labour if 4/5th's of working class people did so?
Or would they simply complain about something else?
The wealthy supporters we have lost mostly do not give a damn about the working classes only their own interests.
I asume the same would happen in French, Irish, Dutch and other EU ports. The voters across Europe would be furious with the political classes, not just in the UK
I'm sorry gentlemen but this exchange makes me sad. It encapsulates two consistent misconceptions that the Conservatives have had since day one, and it's depressing how difficult they are to shift. They are:
1) If anything bad happens, it's the EU's fault. 2) Everything bad that happens in the UK will be reflected by something equally bad in the EU.
Nobody here is capable of understanding two basic things, namely:
a) Brexit, even in an optimistic scenario, involves some economic pain. If we are lucky it'll be invisible: lower growth but still growing, minor inconveniences, etc. If we are unlucky it'll be the death of British industries, and Big G's children will have to become taxi drivers. b) The population differences between the UK and the EU-27 (65million vs ~480million) means that the pain will not be evenly spread: we will suffer more than them. We are severing 27 connections, they are severing one each.
How does this work in India and China?
I don't recall either being in the EU.
You thought they were?
Nope, but as neither India or China were in the EU, I cannot see any lessons for Brexit.
If I thought you didn't understand, I would explain, but you'd have to be dumb not to, which you're not, so I won't
It has been noted that Corbyn can't be shamed into anything. He is not ashamed of anything he has done, however repugnant.
I do find it surprising though that not a single Labour MP has been shamed into leaving a party led by him.
A trickle might become a flood, but it would need a single drop to flow first...
John Woodcock
Woodcock probably left because he was under investigation for doing something wrong.
Note he has not rushed to get that independent investigation and managed to stay in the Labour party before that.
Not that anybody cares about his potential victim, I assume she should be ignored so the right wing press have more ammo against Corbyn.
Maybe alleged should appear
I think I was hoping the probably in the first sentence covered the entire sentence. So the probably is in regard to 'leaving because he did something wrong' rather than he is probably leaving because he definitely did something wrong.
Although English isn't my strongest subject so you may well be right.
You have a strong subject?
Almost everyone has strengths relative to their other abilities regardless of their overall ability. So for example trying to mock people might actually be a strength of yours relative to your other abilities if you really struggle with everything else.
It has been noted that Corbyn can't be shamed into anything. He is not ashamed of anything he has done, however repugnant.
I do find it surprising though that not a single Labour MP has been shamed into leaving a party led by him.
A trickle might become a flood, but it would need a single drop to flow first...
John Woodcock
Woodcock probably left because he was under investigation for doing something wrong.
Note he has not rushed to get that independent investigation and managed to stay in the Labour party before that.
Not that anybody cares about his potential victim, I assume she should be ignored so the right wing press have more ammo against Corbyn.
Maybe alleged should appear
I think I was hoping the probably in the first sentence covered the entire sentence. So the probably is in regard to 'leaving because he did something wrong' rather than he is probably leaving because he definitely did something wrong.
Although English isn't my strongest subject so you may well be right.
You have a strong subject?
Almost everyone has strengths relative to their other abilities regardless of their overall ability. So for example trying to mock people might actually be a strength of yours relative to your other abilities if you really struggle with everything else.
You obviously understand why I asked the question. It seems to me that verbosity is, from what is on view here, obviously your strong suit. Night, night.
There was a poll published last week by "research Intelligencer by Brand Keys" about which is the most trusted TV news brand. The Results (percentages) -
BBC 90 Fox News 87 PBS 86 Bloomberg 81 MsNBC 80 CBS 72 NBC 70 ABC 69 CNN 69 Sinclair broadcast group 58
It has been noted that Corbyn can't be shamed into anything. He is not ashamed of anything he has done, however repugnant.
I do find it surprising though that not a single Labour MP has been shamed into leaving a party led by him.
A trickle might become a flood, but it would need a single drop to flow first...
John Woodcock
Woodcock probably left because he was under investigation for doing something wrong.
Note he has not rushed to get that independent investigation and managed to stay in the Labour party before that.
Not that anybody cares about his potential victim, I assume she should be ignored so the right wing press have more ammo against Corbyn.
Maybe alleged should appear
I think I was hoping the probably in the first sentence covered the entire sentence. So the probably is in regard to 'leaving because he did something wrong' rather than he is probably leaving because he definitely did something wrong.
Although English isn't my strongest subject so you may well be right.
You have a strong subject?
Almost everyone has strengths relative to their other abilities regardless of their overall ability. So for example trying to mock people might actually be a strength of yours relative to your other abilities if you really struggle with everything else.
You obviously understand why I asked the question. It seems to me that verbosity is, from what is on view here, obviously your strong suit.
I understand it was an attempt at a sarcastic put down but it wasn't very well thought out as whether a person is great or terrible at things in general (or overall) they will almost always have stronger and weaker areas.
I asume the same would happen in French, Irish, Dutch and other EU ports. The voters across Europe would be furious with the political classes, not just in the UK
I'm sorry gentlemen but this exchange makes me sad. It encapsulates two consistent misconceptions that the Conservatives have had since day one, and it's depressing how difficult they are to shift. They are:
1) If anything bad happens, it's the EU's fault. 2) Everything bad that happens in the UK will be reflected by something equally bad in the EU.
Nobody here is capable of understanding two basic things, namely:
a) Brexit, even in an optimistic scenario, involves some economic pain. If we are lucky it'll be invisible: lower growth but still growing, minor inconveniences, etc. If we are unlucky it'll be the death of British industries, and Big G's children will have to become taxi drivers. b) The population differences between the UK and the EU-27 (65million vs ~480million) means that the pain will not be evenly spread: we will suffer more than them. We are severing 27 connections, they are severing one each.
Well - I was just about to switch the light off but feel I must respond.
I want a deal, no deal is not acceptable to me. I have stated many times how Boris FO to Airbus infuriated me and I despise Farage and all he stands for
The point I was making is that a no deal would cause havoc and anger across Europe and the political classes would pay a price on both sides of the channel.
As far as my children are concerned one is 52 and lives and works in Canada, my daughter who is 47 is a civil servant and my youngest who is 43 is an IT network manager. My son in law is nearly 60 and is a senior Airbus engineer and my youngest son's partner is in the police service
So I have no concerns for my children's employment and my grandchildren will do just fine
Have a very good night. All the best
I wasn't extracting the urine, @Big_G_NorthWales. I was referring to your son-in-law who worked at Airbus: if memory serves in previous posts you had expressed concern about his job following Boris's "F*** business" remark and Airbus's possible relocation to France. Sorry about the pluralisation, but I couldn't remember how many children you had in engineering. For the record, I certainly hope your children continue to have happy and successful lives.
There was a poll published last week by "research Intelligencer by Brand Keys" about which is the most trusted TV news brand. The Results (percentages) -
BBC 90 Fox News 87 PBS 86 Bloomberg 81 MsNBC 80 CBS 72 NBC 70 ABC 69 CNN 69 Sinclair broadcast group 58
Interesting, but presumably selected by people who actually watch the channel in question, so the people who think PBS is great may not be the same people that love Fox?
Labour actually attracted more working class support under Corbyn, that isn't the point, these wealthy people don't want Labour looking after the working classes, they want Tristram looked after and they will keep writing angry tweets and columns until they get it.
The thing that seems to unite populists on the left and the right is the belief that they represent the interests of the common man more than the 'professional' politicians they've usurped. Do they really care whether it's true, or are they more interested in getting one over on Tristram?
Isn't that what the centrists keep banging on about as well?
The post I was responding too, although it is far from unique on here, newspapers and twitter, is another one complaining about Labour not representing the working class anymore, for a lot of people the answer here is to move back and be more right wing, so a move to the centre, because these politicians on the right of Labour represent real Labour working class values rather than the 'metropolitan Islington elite'
It is rubbish, they don't care about working class people they don't care about anybody but themselves, if all the working classes started voting Labour and being delighted with Corbyn they would still vote against Labour because they don't like Labour.
Seeing reports of CLP meetings on Friday evenings... isn't that, in itself, something that could prevent Jewish participation in such events?
Holding your meeting during Sabbath is not terribly inclusive...
I think most party meetings at which the MP is expected are on Friday evenings for practical reasons.
I was - initially - being somewhat flippant.
However, having regularly scheduled meetings that can exclude a certain religious group is not, perhaps, the best way of running things. And MPs should be sensitive to that - irrespective of party or group.
What's fairly common is Thursday meetings as a rule, with a quarterly meeting with the MP. We generally did ours on Saturday or Sunday afternoons, which I suppose might have been awkward for a different religious group, but in practice I never met anyone who seemed bothered. Not everyone is as observant as you might think, but if someone had objected i'm sure we'd have tried to adjust. We used to agonise over whether we had to meet in disabled-friendly locations, not because we had disabled members at the time, but because we might do.
Seeing reports of CLP meetings on Friday evenings... isn't that, in itself, something that could prevent Jewish participation in such events?
Holding your meeting during Sabbath is not terribly inclusive...
I think most party meetings at which the MP is expected are on Friday evenings for practical reasons.
I was - initially - being somewhat flippant.
However, having regularly scheduled meetings that can exclude a certain religious group is not, perhaps, the best way of running things. And MPs should be sensitive to that - irrespective of party or group.
What's fairly common is Thursday meetings as a rule, with a quarterly meeting with the MP. We generally did ours on Saturday or Sunday afternoons, which I suppose might have been awkward for a different religious group, but in practice I never met anyone who seemed bothered. Not everyone is as observant as you might think, but if someone had objected i'm sure we'd have tried to adjust. We used to agonise over whether we had to meet in disabled-friendly locations, not because we had disabled members at the time, but because we might do.
Being accessible is something that is increasingly important for all organisations. It is, however, not the people who object who matter - as they are already (to a greater or lesser extent) engaged in your organisation. It the people who are thinking about joining and then feel unable to because of scheduling or access (or any other barrier to participation) who are really missing their opportunity to contribute.
In no way is this a party political point, it is about all voluntary organisations where you want to be as open as possible to all potential members. There are some things you can't change - such as an amateur theatre company who are giving a series of performances over the course of a week will find it essentially impossible to cancel performances over the Sabbath hours in order to accommodate a single (or small number of participants). In those circumstances, you could agree to allow people to miss two shows or just have to regretfully say that you can't cast them on this occasion.
However setting up things that make it impossible for one group or another to participate in a regular event is something everyone should strive to avoid.
I don't think that such a realignment is replicable at the moment because of Brexit (a centrist alliance has to be strongly pro-Brexit, which will mean the Tories have a floor of probably around 35%), but even so, if a new centre-left party could become the clear largest party, there's no reason why, in alliance with the Lib Dems, it couldn't match or exceed that share.
"A centrist alliance has to be strongly pro-Brexit"
What is your logic for that statement?
Oops. I meant "strongly pro-Remain on Brexit".
I really do not believe that Brexit is a sufficiently salient issue on which to build significant support for any new party.
That's not the point. The point is that if an SDP2 is created, it will inevitably be strongly pro-Remain (or Rejoin) simply by the nature of the MPs and peers who would join and lead it. And in turn, that would limit its appeal to Leave voters.
I do not disagree at all - and feel that your own comments actually reinforce my point!
There was a poll published last week by "research Intelligencer by Brand Keys" about which is the most trusted TV news brand. The Results (percentages) -
BBC 90 Fox News 87 PBS 86 Bloomberg 81 MsNBC 80 CBS 72 NBC 70 ABC 69 CNN 69 Sinclair broadcast group 58
Interesting, but presumably selected by people who actually watch the channel in question, so the people who think PBS is great may not be the same people that love Fox?
Fox is so dominant in ratings that it's no surprise. What was a surprise was how well MsNBC did - its ratings are even worse than CNN.
Comments
Yawn is a rude way to put it but a sentiment of so what is exactly my reaction as well.
There is a scathing video online of an American Jewish guy scolding Margaret Hodge for her ridiculous comparison and asking for her to be kicked out the Labour party under their rules against anti semitism.
Despite the strength of his words and the horrors in his past of the people who are backing Hodge and opposed to Corbyn don't give a damn what he thinks or says and the feeling is probably largely returned the other way in regards to this Munich survivor.
https://twitter.com/EL4JC/status/1030376764172853248
Incase anybody is interested.
I wish everyone a restful night
The Country needs to be kinder to each other but I fear that may be a tad optimistic
Although English isn't my strongest subject so you may well be right.
The post I was responding too, although it is far from unique on here, newspapers and twitter, is another one complaining about Labour not representing the working class anymore, for a lot of people the answer here is to move back and be more right wing, so a move to the centre, because these politicians on the right of Labour represent real Labour working class values rather than the 'metropolitan Islington elite'
It is rubbish, they don't care about working class people they don't care about anybody but themselves, if all the working classes started voting Labour and being delighted with Corbyn they would still vote against Labour because they don't like Labour.
I want a deal, no deal is not acceptable to me. I have stated many times how Boris FO to Airbus infuriated me and I despise Farage and all he stands for
The point I was making is that a no deal would cause havoc and anger across Europe and the political classes would pay a price on both sides of the channel.
As far as my children are concerned one is 52 and lives and works in Canada, my daughter who is 47 is a civil servant and my youngest who is 43 is an IT network manager. My son in law is nearly 60 and is a senior Airbus engineer and my youngest son's partner is in the police service
So I have no concerns for my children's employment and my grandchildren will do just fine
Have a very good night. All the best
Ask yourself this would any of the people complaining about Corbyn's Labour not representing the working classes vote for and support Corbyn's Labour if 4/5th's of working class people did so?
Or would they simply complain about something else?
The wealthy supporters we have lost mostly do not give a damn about the working classes only their own interests.
BBC 90
Fox News 87
PBS 86
Bloomberg 81
MsNBC 80
CBS 72
NBC 70
ABC 69
CNN 69
Sinclair broadcast group 58
In no way is this a party political point, it is about all voluntary organisations where you want to be as open as possible to all potential members. There are some things you can't change - such as an amateur theatre company who are giving a series of performances over the course of a week will find it essentially impossible to cancel performances over the Sabbath hours in order to accommodate a single (or small number of participants). In those circumstances, you could agree to allow people to miss two shows or just have to regretfully say that you can't cast them on this occasion.
However setting up things that make it impossible for one group or another to participate in a regular event is something everyone should strive to avoid.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/17/time-has-come-teach-political-class-lessonim-back-fighting-real/