Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Despite the dire polling, Jeremy Corbyn is not going anywhere

2456

Comments

  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Are there any markets on when Bozo loses his working majority?

    When Philip Lee crosses the floor on the first day back would be my guess.
    I wonder whether there will be any others?
    I still think the Lib Dems is a tricky place for centre-right remainers to be content , and Change UK also looks a bit weird with Gapes and Soubry in there. So perhaps just Lee, maybe Grieve but it is a big big step for him.
    I note Osborne has decided to hitch to the good ship Boris for the moment...
    Having been a Conservative activist (before the Brexit madness took hold), it is fair to say that in many shires the LibDems are the enemy, more so, and more hated than Labour. I never felt that way, but many of my more moderate Conservative friends have said they could never vote LD (they think I am an oddity), so It is fair to say that for an MP to defect to the LDs would be a very big step indeed.
    They hate us because we deprive them in certain locations of their automatic right to be councilors and run the council, no one else should interfere with that. They also realize that once they start to lose their local government base the parliamentary seat may come into play.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Are there any markets on when Bozo loses his working majority?

    When Philip Lee crosses the floor on the first day back would be my guess.
    I wonder whether there will be any others?
    I still think the Lib Dems is a tricky place for centre-right remainers to be content , and Change UK also looks a bit weird with Gapes and Soubry in there. So perhaps just Lee, maybe Grieve but it is a big big step for him.
    I note Osborne has decided to hitch to the good ship Boris for the moment...
    Having been a Conservative activist (before the Brexit madness took hold), it is fair to say that in many shires the LibDems are the enemy, more so, and more hated than Labour. I never felt that way, but many of my more moderate Conservative friends have said they could never vote LD (they think I am an oddity), so It is fair to say that for an MP to defect to the LDs would be a very big step indeed.

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Are there any markets on when Bozo loses his working majority?

    When Philip Lee crosses the floor on the first day back would be my guess.
    I wonder whether there will be any others?
    I still think the Lib Dems is a tricky place for centre-right remainers to be content , and Change UK also looks a bit weird with Gapes and Soubry in there. So perhaps just Lee, maybe Grieve but it is a big big step for him.
    I note Osborne has decided to hitch to the good ship Boris for the moment...
    Having been a Conservative activist (before the Brexit madness took hold), it is fair to say that in many shires the LibDems are the enemy, more so, and more hated than Labour. I never felt that way, but many of my more moderate Conservative friends have said they could never vote LD (they think I am an oddity), so It is fair to say that for an MP to defect to the LDs would be a very big step indeed.

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Are there any markets on when Bozo loses his working majority?

    when I dealt with conservative and labour activists they really hated the libdems. Anyone who crossed the floor to the yellow peril was seen as beyond the pale.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    I might do a thread on AV this weekend.

    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/1157301363837194241

    I am an absolute supporter of AV in situations where it benefits the Tory party. :)
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,462

    Its a great piece Joff, and sadly leaves me asking the same daily question:

    1) Why am I still in the Labour Party as what's the point, and
    2) If I left, what is the alternative?

    I absolutely define myself by Clause 4 of the Party Constitution. Namely:

    "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect"

    The problem is that the Labour Party is increasingly none of those things.

    Whilst obviously I disagree with your political viewpoint, setting that aside and looking seriously at your situation and that of probably tens of thousands of other Labour members, why do the Lib Dems not meet your standards for achieving your political aims? I have long regarded them as being at least as left wing as Labour and I would have thought they could certainly replace Labour as the main party of the left were Corbyn to persist in his refusal to listen to his members. I am surprised we have not seem much larger wholesale defections to the Lib Dems.
    I might not be representative of LDs and I'm probably more of an Orange Booker, but I don't believe LDs can encompass socialists. I have a lot in common with Social Democrats although I come to my views from a different direction to them. I believe in free enterprise and non interference from Govt in most things. I find both Labour and the Conservatives far to interfering and authoritarian. I often feel that much Tory interference appears very socialist to me. At least Labour actually believe in that interference. However I do also believe everyone has an equal right to health, education and protection from discrimination and in that I am different to a libertarian.

    A long time ago I copied this from this site because I thought it spelt out what being a liberal was to me. Sorry I can't credit who wrote it as I can't remember.

    a)- Individual freedom (free from government interference)

    b)- Free markets (free from government intervention)

    c)- Free trade (between all countries not just within the EU) and against protectionism

    d)- Free education (up to age 18)

    e)- Free health treatment (at the point of delivery)

    f)- Welfare for those unable to look after themselves

    g)- Health and welfare paid for by a contributory system which qualifies you (a la Beveridge)

    h)- A small state so as to let people run their own lives
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,046

    Its a great piece Joff, and sadly leaves me asking the same daily question:

    1) Why am I still in the Labour Party as what's the point, and
    2) If I left, what is the alternative?

    I absolutely define myself by Clause 4 of the Party Constitution. Namely:

    "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect"

    The problem is that the Labour Party is increasingly none of those things.

    Whilst obviously I disagree with your political viewpoint, setting that aside and looking seriously at your situation and that of probably tens of thousands of other Labour members, why do the Lib Dems not meet your standards for achieving your political aims? I have long regarded them as being at least as left wing as Labour and I would have thought they could certainly replace Labour as the main party of the left were Corbyn to persist in his refusal to listen to his members. I am surprised we have not seem much larger wholesale defections to the Lib Dems.
    The intensity of the sense of being in the Labour family is very strong it seems to me. It is very hard to leave.
    That is everything that's wrong with our politics.
  • Sorry for making last one difficult to read. Been watching cricket whilst in pub (my excuse and I am sticking to it)
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,046
    dixiedean said:

    Tabman said:

    dixiedean said:

    I take it criticism of Ms Long-Bailey and Pidcock's "lack of intelligence" is PB code for doesn't sound like they went to private school.
    Since one has a MSc, and the other is a solicitor.
    Not knowing about the world is code for "doesn't know about people like me." Since they are the children of social worker and of a docker. I should imagine they have plenty of knowledge of the world. Just not the world of most on here.

    I don't know piddock, but long_bailey just doesn't perform well. Nothing to do with her accent; everything to do with her inability to master a brief
    I actually agree she ain't impressive, but she isn't stupid, and does know about life. It does irk when we have people who actually have come through the state system, and in Long-Bailey's case have worked a string of relatively ordinary jobs in the real world, in order to fund her own education, then get slated for it. It actually shows some bloody enterprise.
    Then people will moan about the enormous number of private school to Oxbridge to job in politics, MPs we have.
    I went to a state school so I have no prejudice on that front. She just sounds like a Corbynite drone. No original thought.
  • A very good article indeed Joff and thanks for it. As a longstanding Labour person you know what you are talking about.

    Here however is the dilemma and why neither Labour nor the LibDems should consider themselves likely to topple Boris Johnson.

    Most of the vulnerable Tory seats to the LibDems are in the wealthiest parts of the country and to Labour in the most Brexit supporting parts of the country.

    Middle class voters have to decide which is the least worst option, Brexit either with or without a deal or the risk of a Corbyn-led government which would be promising to tax many of them out of their jobs and homes because they wouldn't have enough net salary left to pay the mortgage!

    As always with the electorate, I expect personal interest will come first and suffering Brexit is preferable to suffering a catastrophic drop in standard of living!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043

    Laura Pillock? Leader?

    Jesus, shoot me now

    Pidcock is the Momentum candidate; Long Bailey is McDonnell’s. It’ll be one of the two as the far-left candidate when the distant day Corbyn finally bows out arrives. Neither is anything but awful though, I agree. If I had to choose, I’d say Pidcock is worse because she’s also a phoney. She’s got the Geordie equivalent of a mockney accent.

    Pidcock has an MSc in Disaster Management.

    No comment.
  • kjh said:

    Its a great piece Joff, and sadly leaves me asking the same daily question:

    1) Why am I still in the Labour Party as what's the point, and
    2) If I left, what is the alternative?

    I absolutely define myself by Clause 4 of the Party Constitution. Namely:

    "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect"

    The problem is that the Labour Party is increasingly none of those things.

    Whilst obviously I disagree with your political viewpoint, setting that aside and looking seriously at your situation and that of probably tens of thousands of other Labour members, why do the Lib Dems not meet your standards for achieving your political aims? I have long regarded them as being at least as left wing as Labour and I would have thought they could certainly replace Labour as the main party of the left were Corbyn to persist in his refusal to listen to his members. I am surprised we have not seem much larger wholesale defections to the Lib Dems.
    I might not be representative of LDs and I'm probably more of an Orange Booker, but I don't believe LDs can encompass socialists. I have a lot in common with Social Democrats although I come to my views from a different direction to them. I believe in free enterprise and non interference from Govt in most things. I find both Labour and the Conservatives far to interfering and authoritarian. I often feel that much Tory interference appears very socialist to me. At least Labour actually believe in that interference. However I do also believe everyone has an equal right to health, education and protection from discrimination and in that I am different to a libertarian.

    A long time ago I copied this from this site because I thought it spelt out what being a liberal was to me. Sorry I can't credit who wrote it as I can't remember.

    a)- Individual freedom (free from government interference)

    b)- Free markets (free from government intervention)

    c)- Free trade (between all countries not just within the EU) and against protectionism

    d)- Free education (up to age 18)

    e)- Free health treatment (at the point of delivery)

    f)- Welfare for those unable to look after themselves

    g)- Health and welfare paid for by a contributory system which qualifies you (a la Beveridge)

    h)- A small state so as to let people run their own lives
    And that is a manifesto I would subscribe to
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,046
    kjh said:

    Its a great piece Joff, and sadly leaves me asking the same daily question:

    1) Why am I still in the Labour Party as what's the point, and
    2) If I left, what is the alternative?

    I absolutely define myself by Clause 4 of the Party Constitution. Namely:

    "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect"

    The problem is that the Labour Party is increasingly none of those things.

    Whilst obviously I disagree with your political viewpoint, setting that aside and looking seriously at your situation and that of probably tens of thousands of other Labour members, why do the Lib Dems not meet your standards for achieving your political aims? I have long regarded them as being at least as left wing as Labour and I would have thought they could certainly replace Labour as the main party of the left were Corbyn to persist in his refusal to listen to his members. I am surprised we have not seem much larger wholesale defections to the Lib Dems.
    I might not be representative of LDs and I'm probably more of an Orange Booker, but I don't believe LDs can encompass socialists. I have a lot in common with Social Democrats although I come to my views from a different direction to them. I believe in free enterprise and non interference from Govt in most things. I find both Labour and the Conservatives far to interfering and authoritarian. I often feel that much Tory interference appears very socialist to me. At least Labour actually believe in that interference. However I do also believe everyone has an equal right to health, education and protection from discrimination and in that I am different to a libertarian.

    A long time ago I copied this from this site because I thought it spelt out what being a liberal was to me. Sorry I can't credit who wrote it as I can't remember.

    a)- Individual freedom (free from government interference)

    b)- Free markets (free from government intervention)

    c)- Free trade (between all countries not just within the EU) and against protectionism

    d)- Free education (up to age 18)

    e)- Free health treatment (at the point of delivery)

    f)- Welfare for those unable to look after themselves

    g)- Health and welfare paid for by a contributory system which qualifies you (a la Beveridge)

    h)- A small state so as to let people run their own lives
    I agree 100%

    Liberalism is this, and the antithesis of socialism
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,403

    Its a great piece Joff, and sadly leaves me asking the same daily question:

    1) Why am I still in the Labour Party as what's the point, and
    2) If I left, what is the alternative?

    I absolutely define myself by Clause 4 of the Party Constitution. Namely:

    "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect"

    The problem is that the Labour Party is increasingly none of those things.

    Thanks!!

    Labour’s Clause 4 - all of it - is absolutely what I believe in. It’s only a matter of time before the far left rewrites it, though.

    Reassuring to know that we are all Democratic Socialists.

    Laters...
  • ZephyrZephyr Posts: 438
    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    ConHome is remarkably silent today, but here’s the conclusion on LabourList:

    “The most worrying thing about this by-election? It has increased the chances of both Remain and Leave alliances in an early election, which could see Labour squeezed out and made irrelevant as they were last night. And there’s not much the party can do about that possibility. Labour will just have to hope that it can shift the broader narrative, rather than ignore it, and that the ever-more-likely snap poll isn’t fought entirely on Brexit.”

    "Provided our enemy fights on the ground that we want, we shall be victorious!"

    [Facepalm]
    The take out isn’t who got squeezed, that all depends on chances of being in top two to start with. The take outs from special elections have never been about lost deposits, it’s a red herring media have always been fascinated in that.

    The important take out from this bi election is what Philip Thompson was saying to us even before the result came in, Brexit got a majority of votes, yet “leave with nothing”. What we need to be watching for in elections is how savvy vote lending is, clearly Labour remain had little trouble lending to Libdem. But there’s a lot of Brexit Labour in wales isn’t there, can’t regard all Labour vote as Libdem to squeeze? To what extent does the party political pull influence the vote lending in the squeeze. If Labour shed remainers to libdems yesterday I reckon they shed leavers too, but who to? Can Labour leavers go to Tory where they need to, or will they stay at home or go Brexit or UKIP? Can Toxic Corbyn squeeze libdem and green of their remainers where he needs to?

    That’s the take out, not only from this special election, but elections to come.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "Truth behind Brexit myth of the ‘left behind’
    Philip Collins

    Far from being ignored by Westminster, deprived areas of Britain have received extra help but may be beyond saving"

    (£)

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/don-t-fall-for-brexit-myth-of-the-left-behind-08kgc8rnp
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Borough, that does raise an interesting point, though.

    If we're so integrated in the EU that leaving is impossible, it rather backs up those who said we've integrated too much and those who wanted the promised referendum on Lisbon (and at earlier times too).

    "We can't leave, we've integrated too much without bothering to ask you" is not a good look for Remain.

    They'd be better framing it as the advantages of the EU.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Can anyone point to the part of the GFA that forbids customs checks, either absolutely or at the border?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Byronic said:

    Good piece Southam. Succinct and insightful.

    However, it is maybe a bit too pessimistic on the post-election outcome. Presuming Corbyn loses the next GE, and loses badly, then he would surely have to go. The pressure from all sides would become too great, and he is also an old man. He would simply give up?

    You also ignore the possibility that all of Britain becomes Brecon. And we have a Brexit general election where the Lib Dems entirely replace Labour, who go down under 100 seats. This is far from impossible.

    And in that situation it doesn't really matter who leads Labour, they are no longer the Opposition, nor the Government. They are finished.

    Please, please, please, please, please let this happen.
    The lds though they could replace labour in 2017. Better luck 2019?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    Major warning for us all on the polling:

    https://twitter.com/theobertram/status/1157265590530334720
  • Didn't Parliament reject a deal that would have avoided all this?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    RobD said:

    Can anyone point to the part of the GFA that forbids customs checks, either absolutely or at the border?
    Customs border not mentioned, but it was and is implicitly in the whole atmosphere that finally delivered peace.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043

    Mr. Borough, that does raise an interesting point, though.

    If we're so integrated in the EU that leaving is impossible, it rather backs up those who said we've integrated too much and those who wanted the promised referendum on Lisbon (and at earlier times too).

    "We can't leave, we've integrated too much without bothering to ask you" is not a good look for Remain.

    They'd be better framing it as the advantages of the EU.

    Of course we can leave. But the next point on the road has to be EFTA and not the ridiculous purity of No Deal and unicorn island.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    The fanatics on both sides have always done a better job promoting their opponents than their opponents manage promoting themselves.
  • RobD said:

    Can anyone point to the part of the GFA that forbids customs checks, either absolutely or at the border?
    Customs border not mentioned, but it was and is implicitly in the whole atmosphere that finally delivered peace.
    So no then?

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Cleverly showing himself to be either dim or a cliched stooge today on a couple of occasions I see.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,046

    A very good article indeed Joff and thanks for it. As a longstanding Labour person you know what you are talking about.

    Here however is the dilemma and why neither Labour nor the LibDems should consider themselves likely to topple Boris Johnson.

    Most of the vulnerable Tory seats to the LibDems are in the wealthiest parts of the country and to Labour in the most Brexit supporting parts of the country.

    Middle class voters have to decide which is the least worst option, Brexit either with or without a deal or the risk of a Corbyn-led government which would be promising to tax many of them out of their jobs and homes because they wouldn't have enough net salary left to pay the mortgage!

    As always with the electorate, I expect personal interest will come first and suffering Brexit is preferable to suffering a catastrophic drop in standard of living!

    Losing your job through brexit tends to cause a catStrcatast drop in standard of living
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    RobD said:

    Can anyone point to the part of the GFA that forbids customs checks, either absolutely or at the border?
    Customs border not mentioned, but it was and is implicitly in the whole atmosphere that finally delivered peace.
    I don’t think anyone is arguing cooperation will end, just an additional bit of paperwork when sending goods.
  • TBF the good Friday agreement was quite obsolete the second SF became the largest party on their side.

    It's all just goodwill on the Brits part.

    Will be interesting to see what happens
  • RobD said:

    Can anyone point to the part of the GFA that forbids customs checks, either absolutely or at the border?
    No they can't because the existence of a border, hard or soft, is not mentioned once in the whole GFA. The only mention of the border is with regard to cross-border institutions. As such the GFA explicitly recognises that a border exists but has nothing at all to say about what form it should or should not take. Powell is another fuckwit using the threat of a return to the Troubles as blackmail to argue against Brexit.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Can anyone point to the part of the GFA that forbids customs checks, either absolutely or at the border?
    Customs border not mentioned, but it was and is implicitly in the whole atmosphere that finally delivered peace.
    I don’t think anyone is arguing cooperation will end, just an additional bit of paperwork when sending goods.
    Where is the democratic mandate in Northern Ireland to impose this additional border friction?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    RobD said:

    Can anyone point to the part of the GFA that forbids customs checks, either absolutely or at the border?
    No they can't because the existence of a border, hard or soft, is not mentioned once in the whole GFA. The only mention of the border is with regard to cross-border institutions. As such the GFA explicitly recognises that a border exists but has nothing at all to say about what form it should or should not take. Powell is another fuckwit using the threat of a return to the Troubles as blackmail to argue against Brexit.
    It says it should take the form of cooperation as members of the EU.

    "Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union"

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/136652/agreement.pdf
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,972
    edited August 2019

    Mr. Borough, that does raise an interesting point, though.

    If we're so integrated in the EU that leaving is impossible, it rather backs up those who said we've integrated too much and those who wanted the promised referendum on Lisbon (and at earlier times too).

    "We can't leave, we've integrated too much without bothering to ask you" is not a good look for Remain.

    They'd be better framing it as the advantages of the EU.

    Bullshit from Leavers that's what that is.

    It is possible to the Leave the EU, but not on the terms that Vote Leave said we could, because that was a fantasy.

    Now if say Hungary left the EU, they wouldn't have the problem of the Belfast Agreement, so no we haven't integrated too deeply, we signed up to a deal that has by and large ended the bloodshed in Northern Ireland and the bloodshed that had spread to the mainland.

    The architects of the Belfast Agreement warned this would happen during the referendum but you chose to ignore them.
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Can anyone point to the part of the GFA that forbids customs checks, either absolutely or at the border?
    Customs border not mentioned, but it was and is implicitly in the whole atmosphere that finally delivered peace.
    I don’t think anyone is arguing cooperation will end, just an additional bit of paperwork when sending goods.
    Where is the democratic mandate in Northern Ireland to impose this additional border friction?
    The 2016 EU referendum
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    RobD said:

    Can anyone point to the part of the GFA that forbids customs checks, either absolutely or at the border?
    No they can't because the existence of a border, hard or soft, is not mentioned once in the whole GFA. The only mention of the border is with regard to cross-border institutions. As such the GFA explicitly recognises that a border exists but has nothing at all to say about what form it should or should not take. Powell is another fuckwit using the threat of a return to the Troubles as blackmail to argue against Brexit.
    It says it should take the form of cooperation as members of the EU.

    "Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union"

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/136652/agreement.pdf
    How does the backstop change that? We won’t be a member of the EU.
  • Mr. Borough, that does raise an interesting point, though.

    If we're so integrated in the EU that leaving is impossible, it rather backs up those who said we've integrated too much and those who wanted the promised referendum on Lisbon (and at earlier times too).

    "We can't leave, we've integrated too much without bothering to ask you" is not a good look for Remain.

    They'd be better framing it as the advantages of the EU.

    Bullshit from Leavers that's what that is.

    It is possible to the Leave the EU, but not on the terms that Vote Leave said we could, because that was a fantasy.

    Now if say Hungary left the EU, they wouldn't have the problem of the Belfast Agreement, so no we haven't integrated too deeply, we signed up to a deal that has by and large ended the bloodshed in Northern Ireland and the bloodshed that had spread to the mainland.

    The architects of the Belfast Agreement warned this would happen during the referendum but you chose to ignore them.
    Except nothing Vote Leave promised breaks the letter of the GFA, we just get told about the "spirit" of it.

    I don't believe in a Holy Spirit.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    kjh said:


    I absolutely define myself by Clause 4 of the Party Constitution. Namely:

    "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect"

    The problem is that the Labour Party is increasingly none of those things.

    Whilst obviously I disagree with your political viewpoint, setting that aside and looking seriously at your situation and that of probably tens of thousands of other Labour members, why do the Lib Dems not meet your standards for achieving your political aims? I have long regarded them as being at least as left wing as Labour and I would have thought they could certainly replace Labour as the main party of the left were Corbyn to persist in his refusal to listen to his members. I am surprised we have not seem much larger wholesale defections to the Lib Dems.
    I might not be representative of LDs and I'm probably more of an Orange Booker, but I don't believe LDs can encompass socialists. I have a lot in common with Social Democrats although I come to my views from a different direction to them. I believe in free enterprise and non interference from Govt in most things. I find both Labour and the Conservatives far to interfering and authoritarian. I often feel that much Tory interference appears very socialist to me. At least Labour actually believe in that interference. However I do also believe everyone has an equal right to health, education and protection from discrimination and in that I am different to a libertarian.

    A long time ago I copied this from this site because I thought it spelt out what being a liberal was to me. Sorry I can't credit who wrote it as I can't remember.

    a)- Individual freedom (free from government interference)

    b)- Free markets (free from government intervention)

    c)- Free trade (between all countries not just within the EU) and against protectionism

    d)- Free education (up to age 18)

    e)- Free health treatment (at the point of delivery)

    f)- Welfare for those unable to look after themselves

    g)- Health and welfare paid for by a contributory system which qualifies you (a la Beveridge)

    h)- A small state so as to let people run their own lives
    Muddled thinking:

    g) contradicts e) and f)

    b) contradicts d) and e) - you can't have truly free markets if the state is the mian provider.
  • RobD said:

    Can anyone point to the part of the GFA that forbids customs checks, either absolutely or at the border?
    No they can't because the existence of a border, hard or soft, is not mentioned once in the whole GFA. The only mention of the border is with regard to cross-border institutions. As such the GFA explicitly recognises that a border exists but has nothing at all to say about what form it should or should not take. Powell is another fuckwit using the threat of a return to the Troubles as blackmail to argue against Brexit.
    It says it should take the form of cooperation as members of the EU.

    "Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union"

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/136652/agreement.pdf
    So like I said no mention of borders at all then.

    And if it is the case that that sentence means we are unable to leave the EU ever because membership of the EU is defined within the GFA then Lilico is right and the GFA is dead.
  • RobD said:

    Can anyone point to the part of the GFA that forbids customs checks, either absolutely or at the border?
    No they can't because the existence of a border, hard or soft, is not mentioned once in the whole GFA. The only mention of the border is with regard to cross-border institutions. As such the GFA explicitly recognises that a border exists but has nothing at all to say about what form it should or should not take. Powell is another fuckwit using the threat of a return to the Troubles as blackmail to argue against Brexit.
    It says it should take the form of cooperation as members of the EU.

    "Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union"

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/136652/agreement.pdf
    Was that before or after the Irish chose by referendum to amend the Treaties of the European Union to add Article 50?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Can anyone point to the part of the GFA that forbids customs checks, either absolutely or at the border?
    Customs border not mentioned, but it was and is implicitly in the whole atmosphere that finally delivered peace.
    I don’t think anyone is arguing cooperation will end, just an additional bit of paperwork when sending goods.
    Where is the democratic mandate in Northern Ireland to impose this additional border friction?
    The 2016 EU referendum
    Nope.

    Leave: 349,442 (44.2%)
    Remain: 470,707 (55.8%)
  • ZephyrZephyr Posts: 438
    Do those of you right wing posters calling Corbyn and his crew Marxist and communist genuinely believe it from his policy platform, or are you just ignorant and lazy?

    Corbyns Labour today is more more Keynesian than Marxist

    Firstly the manifesto they fought on 2017 was to the right of Labour manifesto’s 1983 and prior. It was an argument for return to social market economics of the post war consensus, the greater state intervention in key industry as practised by Tory governments. Where’s the realism in your Marxism/communism claim when Corbyn platform is for less nationalisation, less government intervention, and lower levels of taxation than the era Conservative Primeminster Supermac told us we’ve never had it so good? Secondly and conclusively, Marxists are not small c conservatives at heart like Corbyn, McD and others around them in the labour party. Marxists are intent to change the world, Labour went in to the 2017 election devoid of plans to abolish the monarchy abolish the House of Lords or close the ‘public’ schools, to disestablish church and state and bring the UK electoral system into the 21st century with a a single-chamber parliament with proportional representation. The big majority of members of Corbyns cabinet are pro EU, in other words undemocratic and neo-liberal as Marxists would see it.

    Unless of course you are basing your opinions what they are and will do on something other than their stated policies and manifesto’s. Like a fantasy of spin between your ears? Then more fool you and any who listen to you, because that’s not the reality of British democracy and how it works because everybody could then take the game to that silly extreme and not make attempt to understand opponents. Because Many of these policies would be regarded as mainstream in most European countries. Oh. Doesn’t that say something about how we’ve allowed the UK to get ridiculous out of touch with the 21st century.
  • TBF the good Friday agreement was quite obsolete the second SF became the largest party on their side.

    It's all just goodwill on the Brits part.

    Will be interesting to see what happens

    In much the same way as the Scottish parliament is rendered obsolete by nationalist majorities.

    What's the crime the Catalonians got done for - was it "Sedition" or something.

    Time to get that on our statue books asap.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    RobD said:

    Can anyone point to the part of the GFA that forbids customs checks, either absolutely or at the border?
    No they can't because the existence of a border, hard or soft, is not mentioned once in the whole GFA. The only mention of the border is with regard to cross-border institutions. As such the GFA explicitly recognises that a border exists but has nothing at all to say about what form it should or should not take. Powell is another fuckwit using the threat of a return to the Troubles as blackmail to argue against Brexit.
    It says it should take the form of cooperation as members of the EU.

    "Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union"

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/136652/agreement.pdf
    Was that before or after the Irish chose by referendum to amend the Treaties of the European Union to add Article 50?
    The Article 50 process provides for the negotiation of a withdrawal agreement to address such issues. This was done to the satisfaction of both governments.
  • RobD said:

    Can anyone point to the part of the GFA that forbids customs checks, either absolutely or at the border?
    No they can't because the existence of a border, hard or soft, is not mentioned once in the whole GFA. The only mention of the border is with regard to cross-border institutions. As such the GFA explicitly recognises that a border exists but has nothing at all to say about what form it should or should not take. Powell is another fuckwit using the threat of a return to the Troubles as blackmail to argue against Brexit.
    It says it should take the form of cooperation as members of the EU.

    "Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union"

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/136652/agreement.pdf
    So like I said no mention of borders at all then.

    And if it is the case that that sentence means we are unable to leave the EU ever because membership of the EU is defined within the GFA then Lilico is right and the GFA is dead.
    I've yet to hear one reason why the Irish can have a border they desire for Corporation Tax, a border they desire for VAT, a border they desire for Income Tax, a border they desire for Abortion, but a border for customs duties is beyond the pale?

    The border already exists. The Irish are against harmonising taxes.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,091

    I might do a thread on AV this weekend.

    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/1157301363837194241

    Conservatives - Whining Here!
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Can anyone point to the part of the GFA that forbids customs checks, either absolutely or at the border?
    Customs border not mentioned, but it was and is implicitly in the whole atmosphere that finally delivered peace.
    I don’t think anyone is arguing cooperation will end, just an additional bit of paperwork when sending goods.
    Where is the democratic mandate in Northern Ireland to impose this additional border friction?
    The 2016 EU referendum
    Nope.

    Leave: 349,442 (44.2%)
    Remain: 470,707 (55.8%)
    I assume your quoting NI figures. It was a UK wide ref with a million majority for leave
  • RobD said:

    Can anyone point to the part of the GFA that forbids customs checks, either absolutely or at the border?
    No they can't because the existence of a border, hard or soft, is not mentioned once in the whole GFA. The only mention of the border is with regard to cross-border institutions. As such the GFA explicitly recognises that a border exists but has nothing at all to say about what form it should or should not take. Powell is another fuckwit using the threat of a return to the Troubles as blackmail to argue against Brexit.
    It says it should take the form of cooperation as members of the EU.

    "Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union"

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/136652/agreement.pdf
    Was that before or after the Irish chose by referendum to amend the Treaties of the European Union to add Article 50?
    The Article 50 process provides for the negotiation of a withdrawal agreement to address such issues. This was done to the satisfaction of both governments.
    No it wasn't, the British Parliament and thus the British government rejected the withdrawal agreement. We don't have an elected dictatorship of a PM, Parliament is part of our governance too.

    The Article 50 process also provides for No Deal at the end of the period and a clean break then if there is no ratified agreement.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    RobD said:

    Can anyone point to the part of the GFA that forbids customs checks, either absolutely or at the border?
    No they can't because the existence of a border, hard or soft, is not mentioned once in the whole GFA. The only mention of the border is with regard to cross-border institutions. As such the GFA explicitly recognises that a border exists but has nothing at all to say about what form it should or should not take. Powell is another fuckwit using the threat of a return to the Troubles as blackmail to argue against Brexit.
    It says it should take the form of cooperation as members of the EU.

    "Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union"

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/136652/agreement.pdf
    So like I said no mention of borders at all then.

    And if it is the case that that sentence means we are unable to leave the EU ever because membership of the EU is defined within the GFA then Lilico is right and the GFA is dead.
    I've yet to hear one reason why the Irish can have a border they desire for Corporation Tax, a border they desire for VAT, a border they desire for Income Tax, a border they desire for Abortion, but a border for customs duties is beyond the pale?

    The border already exists. The Irish are against harmonising taxes.
    It's very simple. Some forms of divergence between jurisdictions inhibit cross-border trade and daily life, and other forms don't.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,722
    edited August 2019
    Tabman said:

    kjh said:

    Its a great piece Joff, and sadly leaves me asking the same daily question:


    The problem is that the Labour Party is increasingly none of those things.

    Whilst obviously I disagree with your political viewpoint, setting that aside and looking seriously at your situation and that of probably tens of thousands of other Labour members, why do the Lib Dems not meet your standards for achieving your political aims? I have long regarded them as being at least as left wing as Labour and I would have thought they could certainly replace Labour as the main party of the left were Corbyn to persist in his refusal to listen to his members. I am surprised we have not seem much larger wholesale defections to the Lib Dems.
    I might not be representative of LDs and I'm probably more of an Orange Booker, but I don't believe LDs can encompass socialists. I have a lot in common with Social Democrats although I come to my views from a different direction to them. I believe in free enterprise and non interference from Govt in most things. I find both Labour and the Conservatives far to interfering and authoritarian. I often feel that much Tory interference appears very socialist to me. At least Labour actually believe in that interference. However I do also believe everyone has an equal right to health, education and protection from discrimination and in that I am different to a libertarian.

    A long time ago I copied this from this site because I thought it spelt out what being a liberal was to me. Sorry I can't credit who wrote it as I can't remember.

    a)- Individual freedom (free from government interference)

    b)- Free markets (free from government intervention)

    c)- Free trade (between all countries not just within the EU) and against protectionism

    d)- Free education (up to age 18)

    e)- Free health treatment (at the point of delivery)

    f)- Welfare for those unable to look after themselves

    g)- Health and welfare paid for by a contributory system which qualifies you (a la Beveridge)

    h)- A small state so as to let people run their own lives
    I agree 100%

    Liberalism is this, and the antithesis of socialism
    Fine. Like you I like free markets, a lack of government intervention and a small state.
    But, what about the need to prevent exploitation. You cannot educate people to avoid them being exploited or abused. And that means state interference.
    I came to the old Liberal Party because I didn't like the way the Labour Party was (then) controlled by the block vote of the trade unions. I stayed with the LibDems at least partly out of habit and because I found people like Charlie Kennedy worth following. ' Blairite social democracy I find appealing, although Iraq 'did it' for me.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    edited August 2019

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Can anyone point to the part of the GFA that forbids customs checks, either absolutely or at the border?
    Customs border not mentioned, but it was and is implicitly in the whole atmosphere that finally delivered peace.
    I don’t think anyone is arguing cooperation will end, just an additional bit of paperwork when sending goods.
    Where is the democratic mandate in Northern Ireland to impose this additional border friction?
    The 2016 EU referendum
    Nope.

    Leave: 349,442 (44.2%)
    Remain: 470,707 (55.8%)
    I assume your quoting NI figures. It was a UK wide ref with a million majority for leave
    This is the policy of the British government, which precludes a GB vote from determining the relationship between NI and Ireland:

    "The British Government agree that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish. They reaffirm as a binding obligation that they will, for their part, introduce the necessary legislation to give effect to this, or equally to any measure of agreement on future relationships in Ireland which the people living in Ireland may themselves freely so determine without external impediment."

    The people of Northern Ireland did not give consent to be taken out of the single market and customs union. Any form of Brexit that seeks to impose this on them is unacceptable and shames the UK.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Borough, it is ironic that the majority pro-EU MPs have voted exactly in line with the no deal small minority to lead us towards that path.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    RobD said:

    Can anyone point to the part of the GFA that forbids customs checks, either absolutely or at the border?
    Naughty Rob and tbh to keep making the point you think you are making betrays a deep misunderstanding of the history and current situation of Northern Ireland.

    No shame in not knowing its history but you are making a bit of a fool of yourself by not giving up this line.
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Can anyone point to the part of the GFA that forbids customs checks, either absolutely or at the border?
    Customs border not mentioned, but it was and is implicitly in the whole atmosphere that finally delivered peace.
    I don’t think anyone is arguing cooperation will end, just an additional bit of paperwork when sending goods.
    Where is the democratic mandate in Northern Ireland to impose this additional border friction?
    The 2016 EU referendum
    Nope.

    Leave: 349,442 (44.2%)
    Remain: 470,707 (55.8%)
    I assume your quoting NI figures. It was a UK wide ref with a million majority for leave
    This is the policy of the British government, which precludes a GB vote from determining the relationship between NI and Ireland:

    "The British Government agree that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish. They reaffirm as a binding obligation that they will, for their part, introduce the necessary legislation to give effect to this, or equally to any measure of agreement on future relationships in Ireland which the people living in Ireland may themselves freely so determine without external impediment."

    The people of Northern Ireland did not give consent to be taken out of the single market and customs union. Any form of Brexit that seeks to impose this on them is unacceptable and shames the UK.
    Wow damning quote (from presumably the now obsolete GFA)

    I guess we're remaining then.

    And the theory that it is impossible to leave the EU remains intact.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,091
    edited August 2019

    Good piece. My takeaway:

    FPTP makes multi-party coalitions difficult. The junior partner is obliterated, as we saw with Cameron/Clegg. So there will be no multi-party coalitions any time soon - not Lab/LD, not Con/Brexit. (The possible exception is where one party is dominant in a region, a la SNP.)

    Historically the only parties capable of winning power are those which are already internal coalitions. Cameron before he blew it, Blair, Thatcher etc.

    @SouthamObserver’s piece demonstrates that Labour is not going to return to that for many years. ABDPJohnson’s hard Brexit Cabinet shows that the Conservatives, too, have abandoned the logic of the internal coalition, which even May tried to preserve.

    There is one inescapable conclusion from this, which is that sane social democrats like @RochdalePioneers need to join the party formed as an internal coalition between social democrats and liberals.

    But then I would say that.

    I don't think I will join the LDs, but I will lend them my vote until sanity is restored to the Conservative Party (not happening soon!). Interesting to know whether Labour or Conservatives have the "softer" moderate supporters, and in what quantity
    You can register as a supporter without having to pay anything or commit to the formality of membership:

    https://libdems.secure.force.com/LiberalDemocrats/SupporterJoining

    Edit/ apologies if you already have.
  • TOPPING said:

    RobD said:

    Can anyone point to the part of the GFA that forbids customs checks, either absolutely or at the border?
    Naughty Rob and tbh to keep making the point you think you are making betrays a deep misunderstanding of the history and current situation of Northern Ireland.

    No shame in not knowing its history but you are making a bit of a fool of yourself by not giving up this line.
    Just because you act conceited does not make you right.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Zephyr said:

    Do those of you right wing posters calling Corbyn and his crew Marxist and communist genuinely believe it from his policy platform, or are you just ignorant and lazy?

    Corbyns Labour today is more more Keynesian than Marxist

    Firstly the manifesto they fought on 2017 was to the right of Labour manifesto’s 1983 and prior. It was an argument for return to social market economics of the post war consensus, the greater state intervention in key industry as practised by Tory governments. Where’s the realism in your Marxism/communism claim when Corbyn platform is for less nationalisation, less government intervention, and lower levels of taxation than the era Conservative Primeminster Supermac told us we’ve never had it so good? Secondly and conclusively, Marxists are not small c conservatives at heart like Corbyn, McD and others around them in the labour party. Marxists are intent to change the world, Labour went in to the 2017 election devoid of plans to abolish the monarchy abolish the House of Lords or close the ‘public’ schools, to disestablish church and state and bring the UK electoral system into the 21st century with a a single-chamber parliament with proportional representation. The big majority of members of Corbyns cabinet are pro EU, in other words undemocratic and neo-liberal as Marxists would see it.

    Unless of course you are basing your opinions what they are and will do on something other than their stated policies and manifesto’s. Like a fantasy of spin between your ears? Then more fool you and any who listen to you, because that’s not the reality of British democracy and how it works because everybody could then take the game to that silly extreme and not make attempt to understand opponents. Because Many of these policies would be regarded as mainstream in most European countries. Oh. Doesn’t that say something about how we’ve allowed the UK to get ridiculous out of touch with the 21st century.

    Good post.

    They are still dangerous loons but I accept not Marxist.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    I guess we're remaining then.

    And the theory that it is impossible to leave the EU remains intact.

    Terrible news for Scottish unionists if not even mighty Britannia can succeed in extricating itself from the EU. What's the point of the union then?
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    edited August 2019
    Zephyr said:

    Do those of you right wing posters calling Corbyn and his crew Marxist and communist genuinely believe it from his policy platform, or are you just ignorant and lazy?

    Corbyns Labour today is more more Keynesian than Marxist

    Firstly the manifesto they fought on 2017 was to the right of Labour manifesto’s 1983 and prior. It was an argument for return to social market economics of the post war consensus, the greater state intervention in key industry as practised by Tory governments. Where’s the realism in your Marxism/communism claim when Corbyn platform is for less nationalisation, less government intervention, and lower levels of taxation than the era Conservative Primeminster Supermac told us we’ve never had it so good? Secondly and conclusively, Marxists are not small c conservatives at heart like Corbyn, McD and others around them in the labour party. Marxists are intent to change the world, Labour went in to the 2017 election devoid of plans to abolish the monarchy abolish the House of Lords or close the ‘public’ schools, to disestablish church and state and bring the UK electoral system into the 21st century with a a single-chamber parliament with proportional representation. The big majority of members of Corbyns cabinet are pro EU, in other words undemocratic and neo-liberal as Marxists would see it.

    Unless of course you are basing your opinions what they are and will do on something other than their stated policies and manifesto’s. Like a fantasy of spin between your ears? Then more fool you and any who listen to you, because that’s not the reality of British democracy and how it works because everybody could then take the game to that silly extreme and not make attempt to understand opponents. Because Many of these policies would be regarded as mainstream in most European countries. Oh. Doesn’t that say something about how we’ve allowed the UK to get ridiculous out of touch with the 21st century.

    Good post.
    I think there is a lot of lazy thinking on here at times.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited August 2019
    TOPPING said:

    Good post.

    They are still dangerous loons but I accept not Marxist.

    Hmm, let's see what the Shadow Chancellor himself says. From the Repository of All Human Knowledge:

    In 2006, McDonnell said that "Marx, Lenin and Trotsky" were his "most significant" intellectual influences. Footage emerged of McDonnell in 2013 talking about the 2008 global financial crisis and stating, "I've been waiting for this for a generation! We’ve got to demand systemic change. Look, I’m straight, I’m honest with people: I’m a Marxist." He was accused of celebrating the global financial crisis, McDonnell denied the allegation and claimed he was "joking".
    During an interview with Andrew Marr when the footage was played and McDonnell was asked, "Are you a Marxist?", he replied: "I believe there's a lot to learn from reading Kapital, yes of course there is, and that's been recommended not just by me but many others, mainstream economists as well". In 2018, McDonnell attended the Marx 200 conference and stated that "Marxism is about the freedom of spirit, the development of life chances, the enhancement of democracy"


    Looks pretty damned much like a Marxist to me. @Zephyr has been misled by the fact that McDonnell knows he has to get elected first, which is why the policies officially espoused so far are merely extreme left-wing rather than all-out Marxist.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    RobD said:

    Can anyone point to the part of the GFA that forbids customs checks, either absolutely or at the border?
    No they can't because the existence of a border, hard or soft, is not mentioned once in the whole GFA. The only mention of the border is with regard to cross-border institutions. As such the GFA explicitly recognises that a border exists but has nothing at all to say about what form it should or should not take. Powell is another fuckwit using the threat of a return to the Troubles as blackmail to argue against Brexit.
    It says it should take the form of cooperation as members of the EU.

    "Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union"

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/136652/agreement.pdf
    So like I said no mention of borders at all then.

    And if it is the case that that sentence means we are unable to leave the EU ever because membership of the EU is defined within the GFA then Lilico is right and the GFA is dead.
    I've yet to hear one reason why the Irish can have a border they desire for Corporation Tax, a border they desire for VAT, a border they desire for Income Tax, a border they desire for Abortion, but a border for customs duties is beyond the pale?

    The border already exists. The Irish are against harmonising taxes.
    For you, and Tyndall, as with Rob. There is sadly no way to be able to make a comment on Northern Ireland without understanding the history and context.

    On the page everything seems pretty straightforward but it is far more complicated and nuanced.

    As a start understanding that there are customs borders not to check that people are compliant but to catch those who are not compliant is a big step forward for you guys.

  • I guess we're remaining then.

    And the theory that it is impossible to leave the EU remains intact.

    Terrible news for Scottish unionists if not even mighty Britannia can succeed in extricating itself from the EU. What's the point of the union then?
    Ja Ja,

    Ich bin ein European.

    (I'm practising my European in preparedness for the EU Super-state.)
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    RobD said:

    Can anyone point to the part of the GFA that forbids customs checks, either absolutely or at the border?
    Naughty Rob and tbh to keep making the point you think you are making betrays a deep misunderstanding of the history and current situation of Northern Ireland.

    No shame in not knowing its history but you are making a bit of a fool of yourself by not giving up this line.
    Just because you act conceited does not make you right.
    Yet your ignorance certainly makes you wrong.
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038
    TOPPING said:

    Zephyr said:

    Do those of you right wing posters calling Corbyn and his crew Marxist and communist genuinely believe it from his policy platform, or are you just ignorant and lazy?

    Corbyns Labour today is more more Keynesian than Marxist

    Firstly the manifesto they fought on 2017 was to the right of Labour manifesto’s 1983 and prior. It was an argument for return to social market economics of the post war consensus, the greater state intervention in key industry as practised by Tory governments. Where’s the realism in your Marxism/communism claim when Corbyn platform is for less nationalisation, less government intervention, and lower levels of taxation than the era Conservative Primeminster Supermac told us we’ve never had it so good? Secondly and conclusively, Marxists are not small c conservatives at heart like Corbyn, McD and others around them in the labour party. Marxists are intent to change the world, Labour went in to the 2017 election devoid of plans to abolish the monarchy abolish the House of Lords or close the ‘public’ schools, to disestablish church and state and bring the UK electoral system into the 21st century with a a single-chamber parliament with proportional representation. The big majority of members of Corbyns cabinet are pro EU, in other words undemocratic and neo-liberal as Marxists would see it.

    Unless of course you are basing your opinions what they are and will do on something other than their stated policies and manifesto’s. Like a fantasy of spin between your ears? Then more fool you and any who listen to you, because that’s not the reality of British democracy and how it works because everybody could then take the game to that silly extreme and not make attempt to understand opponents. Because Many of these policies would be regarded as mainstream in most European countries. Oh. Doesn’t that say something about how we’ve allowed the UK to get ridiculous out of touch with the 21st century.

    Good post.

    They are still dangerous loons but I accept not Marxist.
    The 4Ms seem to be loons and presumably make Corbyn a loon if he says exactly what they tell him. I don't think McDonnell is remotely loony any more. He's become more pragmatic in his dotage. He was a bit loony when he was running the GLC with Livingstone but that was 35 yrs ago.

    I don't want a single chamber with PR. That's dangerous too without a written constitution. Just look at the results in Wales and Scotland of 'PR' systems designed I think for no party ever to get an absolute majority.

    I want the added safeguard of a 2nd chamber, a written constitution, or both.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    Good post.

    They are still dangerous loons but I accept not Marxist.

    Hmm, let's see what the Shadow Chancellor himself says. From the Repository of All Human Knowledge:

    In 2006, McDonnell said that "Marx, Lenin and Trotsky" were his "most significant" intellectual influences. Footage emerged of McDonnell in 2013 talking about the 2008 global financial crisis and stating, "I've been waiting for this for a generation! We’ve got to demand systemic change. Look, I’m straight, I’m honest with people: I’m a Marxist." He was accused of celebrating the global financial crisis, McDonnell denied the allegation and claimed he was "joking".
    During an interview with Andrew Marr when the footage was played and McDonnell was asked, "Are you a Marxist?", he replied: "I believe there's a lot to learn from reading Kapital, yes of course there is, and that's been recommended not just by me but many others, mainstream economists as well". In 2018, McDonnell attended the Marx 200 conference and stated that "Marxism is about the freedom of spirit, the development of life chances, the enhancement of democracy"


    Looks pretty damned much like a Marxist to me. @Zephyr has been misled by the fact that McDonnell knows he has to get elected first, which is why the policies espoused so far are merely extreme left-wing rather than all-out Marxist.
    Maybe but I can't see a Labour government implementing Marxist policies. But then I couldn't see a conservative one overseeing a no deal Brexit.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    I guess we're remaining then.

    And the theory that it is impossible to leave the EU remains intact.

    Terrible news for Scottish unionists if not even mighty Britannia can succeed in extricating itself from the EU. What's the point of the union then?
    Ja Ja,

    Ich bin ein European.

    (I'm practising my European in preparedness for the EU Super-state.)
    I hope you are getting fit for the European army basic fitness test.
  • TOPPING said:

    I guess we're remaining then.

    And the theory that it is impossible to leave the EU remains intact.

    Terrible news for Scottish unionists if not even mighty Britannia can succeed in extricating itself from the EU. What's the point of the union then?
    Ja Ja,

    Ich bin ein European.

    (I'm practising my European in preparedness for the EU Super-state.)
    I hope you are getting fit for the European army basic fitness test.
    Nein Nein not with my gammy leg and all.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Don't want to blow my own trumpet but I won the prediction competition on the VoteUK discussion forum for forecasting the result of the Brecon & Radnor by-election. There were about 20 entries altogether. My prediction was LD 45, Con 37, BRX 11, Lab 5.5, Others 1.5.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    TOPPING said:

    Maybe but I can't see a Labour government implementing Marxist policies.

    Well, one can quibble about definitions, but nationalisation without proper compensation goes a long way down the route to Marxism.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/ThatTimWalker/status/1157312089435885575

    He didn't chair the COBRA meeting today
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,722

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Can anyone point to the part of the GFA that forbids customs checks, either absolutely or at the border?
    Customs border not mentioned, but it was and is implicitly in the whole atmosphere that finally delivered peace.
    I don’t think anyone is arguing cooperation will end, just an additional bit of paperwork when sending goods.
    Where is the democratic mandate in Northern Ireland to impose this additional border friction?
    The 2016 EU referendum
    Nope.

    Leave: 349,442 (44.2%)
    Remain: 470,707 (55.8%)
    I assume your quoting NI figures. It was a UK wide ref with a million majority for leave
    This is the policy of the British government, which precludes a GB vote from determining the relationship between NI and Ireland:

    "The British Government agree that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish. They reaffirm as a binding obligation that they will, for their part, introduce the necessary legislation to give effect to this, or equally to any measure of agreement on future relationships in Ireland which the people living in Ireland may themselves freely so determine without external impediment."

    The people of Northern Ireland did not give consent to be taken out of the single market and customs union. Any form of Brexit that seeks to impose this on them is unacceptable and shames the UK.
    Wow damning quote (from presumably the now obsolete GFA)

    I guess we're remaining then.

    And the theory that it is impossible to leave the EU remains intact.
    I strongly suspect that if there was a referendum on the unification with the electorate of UK (inc NI) and the RoI able to vote, reunification would win by a considerable distance.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    AndyJS said:

    Don't want to blow my own trumpet but I won the prediction competition on the VoteUK discussion forum for forecasting the result of the Brecon & Radnor by-election. There were about 20 entries altogether. My prediction was LD 45, Con 37, BRX 11, Lab 5.5, Others 1.5.

    Your trumpet is well blown!
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    AndyJS said:

    Don't want to blow my own trumpet but I won the prediction competition on the VoteUK discussion forum for forecasting the result of the Brecon & Radnor by-election. There were about 20 entries altogether. My prediction was LD 45, Con 37, BRX 11, Lab 5.5, Others 1.5.

    Your trumpet is well blown!
    It was unavoidable.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    I guess we're remaining then.

    And the theory that it is impossible to leave the EU remains intact.

    Terrible news for Scottish unionists if not even mighty Britannia can succeed in extricating itself from the EU. What's the point of the union then?
    Ja Ja,

    Ich bin ein European.

    (I'm practising my European in preparedness for the EU Super-state.)
    I hope you are getting fit for the European army basic fitness test.
    Nein Nein not with my gammy leg and all.
    So for you Tommy, the war will not yet begin...
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    AndyJS said:

    AndyJS said:

    Don't want to blow my own trumpet but I won the prediction competition on the VoteUK discussion forum for forecasting the result of the Brecon & Radnor by-election. There were about 20 entries altogether. My prediction was LD 45, Con 37, BRX 11, Lab 5.5, Others 1.5.

    Your trumpet is well blown!
    It was unavoidable.
    Well done, Sir - that was an impressive prediction.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,462

    Tabman said:

    kjh said:

    Its

    Ws.
    I ....... libertarian.

    A long time ago I copied this from this site because I thought it spelt out what being a liberal was to me. Sorry I can't credit who wrote it as I can't remember.

    a)- Individual freedom (free from government interference)

    b)- Free markets (free from government intervention)

    c)- Free trade (between all countries not just within the EU) and against protectionism

    d)- Free education (up to age 18)

    e)- Free health treatment (at the point of delivery)

    f)- Welfare for those unable to look after themselves

    g)- Health and welfare paid for by a contributory system which qualifies you (a la Beveridge)

    h)- A small state so as to let people run their own lives
    I agree 100%

    Liberalism is this, and the antithesis of socialism
    Fine. Like you I like free markets, a lack of government intervention and a small state.
    But, what about the need to prevent exploitation. You cannot educate people to avoid them being exploited or abused. And that means state interference.
    I came to the old Liberal Party because I didn't like the way the Labour Party was (then) controlled by the block vote of the trade unions. I stayed with the LibDems at least partly out of habit and because I found people like Charlie Kennedy worth following. ' Blairite social democracy I find appealing, although Iraq 'did it' for me.
    I agree re exploitation and abuse. However I do find this tends to be poorly done by both Socialist and Conservatives. Take the controls over energy prices by the Tories. To me that is socialism and not free markets. There is usually a very clear difference between fair competition and rip offs (and it did happen here). I think we can all identify rip offs that are aimed at exploiting the vulnerable. I do not believe is beyond the wit of parliament to be able legislate for that in general rather than specifically. Currently rip offs continue for years, a law/rule is eventually implemented to control that and in the process stifle fair competition and the rip off merchants move to the next scam/loop hole and we have more legislation on the books.
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Can anyone point to the part of the GFA that forbids customs checks, either absolutely or at the border?
    Customs border not mentioned, but it was and is implicitly in the whole atmosphere that finally delivered peace.
    I don’t think anyone is arguing cooperation will end, just an additional bit of paperwork when sending goods.
    Where is the democratic mandate in Northern Ireland to impose this additional border friction?
    The 2016 EU referendum
    Nope.

    Leave: 349,442 (44.2%)
    Remain: 470,707 (55.8%)
    I assume your quoting NI figures. It was a UK wide ref with a million majority for leave
    This is the policy of the British government, which precludes a GB vote from determining the relationship between NI and Ireland:

    "The British Government agree that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish. They reaffirm as a binding obligation that they will, for their part, introduce the necessary legislation to give effect to this, or equally to any measure of agreement on future relationships in Ireland which the people living in Ireland may themselves freely so determine without external impediment."

    The people of Northern Ireland did not give consent to be taken out of the single market and customs union. Any form of Brexit that seeks to impose this on them is unacceptable and shames the UK.
    Wow damning quote (from presumably the now obsolete GFA)

    I guess we're remaining then.

    And the theory that it is impossible to leave the EU remains intact.
    I strongly suspect that if there was a referendum on the unification with the electorate of UK (inc NI) and the RoI able to vote, reunification would win by a considerable distance.
    reunification of what ?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    Maybe but I can't see a Labour government implementing Marxist policies.

    Well, one can quibble about definitions, but nationalisation without proper compensation goes a long way down the route to Marxism.
    Will they though? The practicalities make it very unlikely don't they?
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,225
    edited August 2019
    Excellent piece, Joff. Thank you.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    TOPPING said:

    Good post.

    They are still dangerous loons but I accept not Marxist.

    Hmm, let's see what the Shadow Chancellor himself says. From the Repository of All Human Knowledge:

    In 2006, McDonnell said that "Marx, Lenin and Trotsky" were his "most significant" intellectual influences. Footage emerged of McDonnell in 2013 talking about the 2008 global financial crisis and stating, "I've been waiting for this for a generation! We’ve got to demand systemic change. Look, I’m straight, I’m honest with people: I’m a Marxist." He was accused of celebrating the global financial crisis, McDonnell denied the allegation and claimed he was "joking".
    During an interview with Andrew Marr when the footage was played and McDonnell was asked, "Are you a Marxist?", he replied: "I believe there's a lot to learn from reading Kapital, yes of course there is, and that's been recommended not just by me but many others, mainstream economists as well". In 2018, McDonnell attended the Marx 200 conference and stated that "Marxism is about the freedom of spirit, the development of life chances, the enhancement of democracy"


    Looks pretty damned much like a Marxist to me. @Zephyr has been misled by the fact that McDonnell knows he has to get elected first, which is why the policies officially espoused so far are merely extreme left-wing rather than all-out Marxist.
    One of the problems with labelling someone a Marxist is: what do you mean by it?

    Given what I understand by Marxism I would pretty much call myself a Marxist, but I'm aware that other people think it means different things, so mostly I don't.

    Once you get to the point where someone is telling you what you think, because you have no agreed definition for a label, then that label isn't useful.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    TOPPING said:

    Will they though? The practicalities make it very unlikely don't they?

    Dunno. We are possibly talking about an extreme left-wing government taking over after Boris has had a first go at trashing the economy. I wouldn't want us to have to rely on mere practical difficulties to prevent McDonnell finishing off the job.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,722

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Can anyone point to the part of the GFA that forbids customs checks, either absolutely or at the border?
    Customs border not mentioned, but it was and is implicitly in the whole atmosphere that finally delivered peace.
    I don’t think anyone is arguing cooperation will end, just an additional bit of paperwork when sending goods.
    Where is the democratic mandate in Northern Ireland to impose this additional border friction?
    The 2016 EU referendum
    Nope.

    Leave: 349,442 (44.2%)
    Remain: 470,707 (55.8%)
    I assume your quoting NI figures. It was a UK wide ref with a million majority for leave
    "The British Government agree that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish. They reaffirm as a binding obligation that they will, for their part, introduce the necessary legislation to give effect to this, or equally to any measure of agreement on future relationships in Ireland which the people living in Ireland may themselves freely so determine without external impediment."

    The people of Northern Ireland did not give consent to be taken out of the single market and customs union. Any form of Brexit that seeks to impose this on them is unacceptable and shames the UK.
    Wow damning quote (from presumably the now obsolete GFA)

    I guess we're remaining then.

    And the theory that it is impossible to leave the EU remains intact.
    I strongly suspect that if there was a referendum on the unification with the electorate of UK (inc NI) and the RoI able to vote, reunification would win by a considerable distance.
    reunification of what ?
    The reunification of the island of Ireland.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,462

    kjh said:


    I absolutely define myself by Clause 4 of the Party Constitution. Namely:

    .............

    The problem is that the Labour Party is increasingly none of those things.

    Whilst obviously I disagree with your political viewpoint, setting that aside and looking seriously at your situation and that of probably tens of thousands of other Labour members, why do the Lib Dems not meet your standards for achieving your political aims? I have long regarded them as being at least as left wing as Labour and I would have thought they could certainly replace Labour as the main party of the left were Corbyn to persist in his refusal to listen to his members. I am surprised we have not seem much larger wholesale defections to the Lib Dems.
    I might not be representative of LDs and I'm probably more of an Orange Booker, but I don't believe LDs can encompass socialists. I have a lot in common with Social Democrats although I come to my views from a different direction to them. I believe in free enterprise and non interference from Govt in most things. I find both Labour and the Conservatives far to interfering and authoritarian. I often feel that much Tory interference appears very socialist to me. At least Labour actually believe in that interference. However I do also believe everyone has an equal right to health, education and protection from discrimination and in that I am different to a libertarian.

    A long time ago I copied this from this site because I thought it spelt out what being a liberal was to me. Sorry I can't credit who wrote it as I can't remember.

    a)- Individual freedom (free from government interference)

    b)- Free markets (free from government intervention)

    c)- Free trade (between all countries not just within the EU) and against protectionism

    d)- Free education (up to age 18)

    e)- Free health treatment (at the point of delivery)

    f)- Welfare for those unable to look after themselves

    g)- Health and welfare paid for by a contributory system which qualifies you (a la Beveridge)

    h)- A small state so as to let people run their own lives
    Muddled thinking:

    g) contradicts e) and f)

    b) contradicts d) and e) - you can't have truly free markets if the state is the mian provider.
    I clearly stated my exceptions to free markets and pointed out I was not a libertarian so how is that muddled thinking?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,722
    4 wickets down at Edgbaston.
  • Are the Aussies using sandpaper again?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820

    One of the problems with labelling someone a Marxist is: what do you mean by it?

    Given what I understand by Marxism I would pretty much call myself a Marxist, but I'm aware that other people think it means different things, so mostly I don't.

    Once you get to the point where someone is telling you what you think, because you have no agreed definition for a label, then that label isn't useful.

    Agreed, but he labelled himself a Marxist. Seems perverse not to accept his own definition.
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Can anyone point to the part of the GFA that forbids customs checks, either absolutely or at the border?
    Customs border not mentioned, but it was and is implicitly in the whole atmosphere that finally delivered peace.
    I don’t think anyone is arguing cooperation will end, just an additional bit of paperwork when sending goods.
    Where is the democratic mandate in Northern Ireland to impose this additional border friction?
    The 2016 EU referendum
    Nope.

    Leave: 349,442 (44.2%)
    Remain: 470,707 (55.8%)
    I assume your quoting NI figures. It was a UK wide ref with a million majority for leave
    "The British Government agree that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish. They reaffirm as a binding obligation that they will, for their part, introduce the necessary legislation to give effect to this, or equally to any measure of agreement on future relationships in Ireland which the people living in Ireland may themselves freely so determine without external impediment."

    The people of Northern Ireland did not give consent to be taken out of the single market and customs union. Any form of Brexit that seeks to impose this on them is unacceptable and shames the UK.
    Wow damning quote (from presumably the now obsolete GFA)

    I guess we're remaining then.

    And the theory that it is impossible to leave the EU remains intact.
    I strongly suspect that if there was a referendum on the unification with the electorate of UK (inc NI) and the RoI able to vote, reunification would win by a considerable distance.
    reunification of what ?
    The reunification of the island of Ireland.
    Okay - it would hardly be a democratic vote though would it. NI wants to be British and I think we should let them be that.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    No. It doesn't say anything about politics without a comma after honeymoon.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,462

    kjh said:

    Its a great piece Joff, and sadly leaves me asking the same daily question:

    1) Why am I still in the Labour Party as what's the point, and
    2) If I left, what is the alternative?

    I absolutely define myself by Clause 4 of the Party Constitution. Namely:

    ...................

    The problem is that the Labour Party is increasingly none of those things.

    Whilst obviously I disagree with your political viewpoint, setting that aside and looking seriously at your situation and that of probably tens of thousands of other Labour members, why do the Lib Dems not meet your standards for achieving your political aims? I have long regarded them as being at least as left wing as Labour and I would have thought they could certainly replace Labour as the main party of the left were Corbyn to persist in his refusal to listen to his members. I am surprised we have not seem much larger wholesale defections to the Lib Dems.
    I might not be representative of LDs and I'm probably more of an Orange Booker, but I don't believe LDs can encompass socialists. I have a lot in common with Social Democrats although I come to my views from a different direction to them. I believe in free enterprise and non interference from Govt in most things. I find both Labour and the Conservatives far to interfering and authoritarian. I often feel that much Tory interference appears very socialist to me. At least Labour actually believe in that interference. However I do also believe everyone has an equal right to health, education and protection from discrimination and in that I am different to a libertarian.

    A long time ago I copied this from this site because I thought it spelt out what being a liberal was to me. Sorry I can't credit who wrote it as I can't remember.

    a)- Individual freedom (free from government interference)

    b)- Free markets (free from government intervention)

    c)- Free trade (between all countries not just within the EU) and against protectionism

    d)- Free education (up to age 18)

    e)- Free health treatment (at the point of delivery)

    f)- Welfare for those unable to look after themselves

    g)- Health and welfare paid for by a contributory system which qualifies you (a la Beveridge)

    h)- A small state so as to let people run their own lives
    And that is a manifesto I would subscribe to
    Cheers BigG as I have said before one of us is in the wrong party. I hope it isn't me.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    Will they though? The practicalities make it very unlikely don't they?

    Dunno. We are possibly talking about an extreme left-wing government taking over after Boris has had a first go at trashing the economy. I wouldn't want us to have to rely on mere practical difficulties to prevent McDonnell finishing off the job.
    It is of course a good point. Oh Jeremy Corbyn. But not in that way.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    RobD said:

    Can anyone point to the part of the GFA that forbids customs checks, either absolutely or at the border?
    No they can't because the existence of a border, hard or soft, is not mentioned once in the whole GFA. The only mention of the border is with regard to cross-border institutions. As such the GFA explicitly recognises that a border exists but has nothing at all to say about what form it should or should not take. Powell is another fuckwit using the threat of a return to the Troubles as blackmail to argue against Brexit.
    It says it should take the form of cooperation as members of the EU.

    "Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union"

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/136652/agreement.pdf
    So like I said no mention of borders at all then.

    And if it is the case that that sentence means we are unable to leave the EU ever because membership of the EU is defined within the GFA then Lilico is right and the GFA is dead.
    I've yet to hear one reason why the Irish can have a border they desire for Corporation Tax, a border they desire for VAT, a border they desire for Income Tax, a border they desire for Abortion, but a border for customs duties is beyond the pale?

    The border already exists. The Irish are against harmonising taxes.
    To be fair, throughout history there have been many, many customs unions.

    But there aren't many (if any) examples of neighbouring nations harmonising corporate tax. (Not least because who decides when it changes? Are we allowing Ireland to set ours? Or are they setting ours? Or are we setting up a joint body?)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    Are the Aussies using sandpaper again?

    They've whinged and whinged and whinged, got the ball changed - England's scoring rate has dropped and the wicket count gone up since then..
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    Are the Aussies using sandpaper again?

    Boycott says they've been given a newer ball after convincing the umpires to replace the one they started with.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,722
    kjh said:

    Tabman said:

    kjh said:

    Its

    Ws.
    I ....... libertarian.

    A long time ago I copied this from this site because I thought it spelt out what being a liberal was to me. Sorry I can't credit who wrote it as I can't remember.

    a)- Individual freedom (free from government interference)

    b)- Free markets (free from government intervention)

    c)- Free trade (between all countries not just within the EU) and against protectionism

    d)- Free education (up to age 18)

    e)- Free health treatment (at the point of delivery)

    f)- Welfare for those unable to look after themselves

    g)- Health and welfare paid for by a contributory system which qualifies you (a la Beveridge)

    h)- A small state so as to let people run their own lives
    I agree 100%

    Liberalism is this, and the antithesis of socialism
    Fine. Like you I like free markets, a lack of government intervention and a small state.
    But, what about the need to prevent exploitation. You cannot educate people to avoid them being exploited or abused. And that means state interference.
    I came to the old Liberal Party because I didn't like the way the Labour Party was (then) controlled by the block vote of the trade unions. I stayed with the LibDems at least partly out of habit and because I found people like Charlie Kennedy worth following. ' Blairite social democracy I find appealing, although Iraq 'did it' for me.
    I agree re exploitation and abuse. However I do find this tends to be poorly done by both Socialist and Conservatives. Take the controls over energy prices by the Tories. To me that is socialism and not free markets. There is usually a very clear difference between fair competition and rip offs (and it did happen here). I think we can all identify rip offs that are aimed at exploiting the vulnerable. I do not believe is beyond the wit of parliament to be able legislate for that in general rather than specifically. Currently rip offs continue for years, a law/rule is eventually implemented to control that and in the process stifle fair competition and the rip off merchants move to the next scam/loop hole and we have more legislation on the books.
    Point taken. Agree that protection is done poorly. Trouble is the robbers will always be one step ahead of the police.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382

    TOPPING said:

    Maybe but I can't see a Labour government implementing Marxist policies.

    Well, one can quibble about definitions, but nationalisation without proper compensation goes a long way down the route to Marxism.
    Maybe ,however to me getting rid of the house of lords, replacing with an elected second chamber.PR for elected MPs and councils.Elected Head of state, would be radical.
    A manifesto which said nationalise the railways , when the franchise expires is a bit tame.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039

    No. It doesn't say anything about politics without a comma after honeymoon.
    BJ on honeymoon? Not in Wales
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    The Australians are a hard team to like.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,722

    No. It doesn't say anything about politics without a comma after honeymoon.
    BJ on honeymoon? Not in Wales
    I thought life was one long honeymoon for him. When he was finished with the one with one partner, he moved on to another!
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited August 2019
    Yorkcity said:

    TOPPING said:

    Maybe but I can't see a Labour government implementing Marxist policies.

    Well, one can quibble about definitions, but nationalisation without proper compensation goes a long way down the route to Marxism.
    Maybe ,however to me getting rid of the house of lords, replacing with an elected second chamber.PR for elected MPs and councils.Elected Head of state, would be radical.
    A manifesto which said nationalise the railways , when the franchise expires is a bit tame.
    One of the current proposals is to go back to the bad old days when all Council services were supplied in-house, and actually making it illegal for local councils to seek best value. By any measure that is extreme as well as bonkers; I'm not sure it's 'radical' as such, given that it is throwing away four decades of progress which has been imitated throughout the world. It's more like discredited old-style stuff from the 'sick man of Europe' sixties.
This discussion has been closed.