O/T DUP still not playing ball..

[animallittle3]

A nice reasoned response (different from daft replies we see from one other Corbyn supporter).

It's obviously a situation that folks see differently. A bit like asking a potato if it wants to be chipped or mashed.

Things are bad but there's a big chance that a Corbyn government would sink the already waterlogged boat.

Not ideal but I believe what we have now is the best of a very bad lot.

That's where we differ Grist , you've accepted it but I never will .

I just don't want to see this country turn into a miniature USA , no NHS , no safety net and terrible inequality and no will to tackle it .

[animallittle3]

In my opinion defeating the tories at the next election is only half the real battle .


The Labour Party is still as divided as it was 12 months ago , the only real change is that the centre have gone remarkably quiet in the media but behind the scenes they remain as ever motivated to kick out Corbyn and return it to New Labour rules .

People like Stephen Kinnock were mortified when last June's election result came in , Mandelson too I shouldn't wonder .

There isn't the slightest bit of will to unite the party from them , not one drop , they want to see Corbyn fail and then give it the I told you so's , they forget they are two time election losers themselves and it's clearly not 1997 .

They aren't welcome within Momentum , not because they are New Labour but because of their destructive behaviour and plotting , they can't be trusted .

It's not what I want to see , the Labour Party is a broad church and it should always remain so but how can you accommodate politicians within your own party who are more useful to the Tories than ourselves .

I've posted this because very often Momentum is looked upon as some kind of Gestapo and it's far from it .

The leader was elected twice by the members , how democratic a leader can you get , he was elected by a considerable margin twice , Momentum didn't make the rules , New Labour did .

I'm not suggesting everything is perfect because it isn't but it's not the beast portrayed to you by the MSM and New Labour either .

I think Labour have more than a shot at the next election but the divides need to be addressed because a sustainable stint in power will be difficult until the hatchet is buried .

Look at the Tories today and their divisions , almost impossible to govern effectively and Labour aren't immune to it by a long chalk .

[ragingpup]

In my opinion defeating the tories at the next election is only half the real battle .


The Labour Party is still as divided as it was 12 months ago , the only real change is that the centre have gone remarkably quiet in the media but behind the scenes they remain as ever motivated to kick out Corbyn and return it to New Labour rules .

People like Stephen Kinnock were mortified when last June's election result came in , Mandelson too I shouldn't wonder .

There isn't the slightest bit of will to unite the party from them , not one drop , they want to see Corbyn fail and then give it the I told you so's , they forget they are two time election losers themselves and it's clearly not 1997 .

They aren't welcome within Momentum , not because they are New Labour but because of their destructive behaviour and plotting , they can't be trusted .

It's not what I want to see , the Labour Party is a broad church and it should always remain so but how can you accommodate politicians within your own party who are more useful to the Tories than ourselves .

I've posted this because very often Momentum is looked upon as some kind of Gestapo and it's far from it .

The leader was elected twice by the members , how democratic a leader can you get , he was elected by a considerable margin twice , Momentum didn't make the rules , New Labour did .

I'm not suggesting everything is perfect because it isn't but it's not the beast portrayed to you by the MSM and New Labour either .

I think Labour have more than a shot at the next election but the divides need to be addressed because a sustainable stint in power will be difficult until the hatchet is buried .

Look at the Tories today and their divisions , almost impossible to govern effectively and Labour aren't immune to it by a long chalk .

Interesting post for us on the left. I take your point but I do honestly wonder if many of the middle ground MPs might genuinely have been won over by Corbyn's performance in the same way that many centre ground people and even my family were! At heart they are for social justice but had followed Blair's path in believing that the only way to power was the centre ground, and then do what good you could from there. I think many of these would think again if it was shown to them that an even more radical path could be shown to appeal to the public.

You're right in that we have to maintain our broad church. I was disgusted with my own MP Wes Streeting, who was one of the main rebels against Corbyn in the 2nd challenge. But he, having spoken to him about it (and not battered his shiny head like I was tempted to when he turned up on my doorstep!) like many in the country, simply did not think Corbyn could possibly appeal to the masses in the centre right climate pre-election and that we had to maintain the centre. He seems very impressed now with Corbyn and his response and would I think be delighted if a more radical mandate for the party come good.

I think the centre ground people will back Corbyn in the main and that most, at heart, would be delighted if he won the next election.

For me, the biggest challenge is as it was; its trying to put over a convincing economic case that most people would be better off under a Corbyn government and to try and counter the almost automatic response that we can't be trusted with the economy. The last manifesto for me made no wealth threatening commitments other than small increases in taxes in higher bands and corporation taxes but importantly would keep business competitive within the world economy. The wealthy would have no reason to fly, despite the reservations of the likes of Kerr and GM. We must still reward enterprise and wealth creation, just not pander to it at the expense of the majority and skinning of services on which most of us rely, and which most of us feel being taken from us in our everyday lives.

If we can win that argument then we'd be in a very strong position. But as you can see from posts on here, there's a long way to go !

[one_a_day]

So labour want to remain in the single market and customs union but state that freedom of movement will end.

How does that work?

[ragingpup]

So labour want to remain in the single market and customs union but state that freedom of movement will end.

How does that work?

If we agree that remaining in the single market and customs union, with tariff free and borderless trade with the EU will be the best economic deal for the UK as we approach trade negotiations with the EU, why would you take that off the table before negotiations begin?

True that the EU have stated that you cannot have one (tariff/border free trade) without the other (freedom of movement) many times in their own pre-negotiation posturing (and fair play to them, why wouldn't they?) but nothing is decided until actual negotiations begin.

So why are you arguing that we should take our best deal off the table before we begin?

[one_a_day]

If we agree that remaining in the single market and customs union, with tariff free and borderless trade with the EU will be the best economic deal for the UK as we approach trade negotiations with the EU, why would you take that off the table before negotiations begin?

True that the EU have stated that you cannot have one (tariff/border free trade) without the other (freedom of movement) many times in their own pre-negotiation posturing (and fair play to them, why wouldn't they?) but nothing is decided until actual negotiations begin.

So why are you arguing that we should take our best deal off the table before we begin?

Because it is never going to happen. Membership of the single market means keeping all of the EU's "four freedoms" - goods, services, capital, and labour. If they conceded on the freedom of movement for the UK then every other country would want it.

[ragingpup]

Because it is never going to happen. Membership of the single market means keeping all of the EU's "four freedoms" - goods, services, capital, and labour. If they conceded on the freedom of movement for the UK then every other country would want it.

That has been the EU position. But we have not started trade negotiations and this position may well be negotiated if it can be argued that tariff free trade and friction-less borders will benefit EU business too. Surely you should go into negotiations with all options open and your angle that would get YOU the best deal as well as the best deal for the EU.

Again, to remove this position before negotiations begin - why? How do you KNOW it isn't going to happen?

(I would agree however that it is unlikely, but that doesn't mean you should just throw your best outcome in the bin before you enter the negotiating room. Does it??!)

[animallittle3]

That has been the EU position. But we have not started trade negotiations and this position may well be negotiated if it can be argued that tariff free trade and friction-less borders will benefit EU business too. Surely you should go into negotiations with all options open and your angle that would get YOU the best deal as well as the best deal for the EU.

Again, to remove this position before negotiations begin - why? How do you KNOW it isn't going to happen?

(I would agree however that it is unlikely, but that doesn't mean you should just throw your best outcome in the bin before you enter the negotiating room. Does it??!)

You should get yourself over to Brussels pup and show the tories how to negotiate .

Handing over billions of pounds for basically nothing in return seems to be the best they can do and we haven't got to the hard part yet .

The Republic of Ireland have just pulled the UK's pants down using the DUP as camouflage and they didn't even see that and still haven't worked it out .


Good fun though .

[KerrAvon]

There are other aspects of my life/environment I could discuss but this post is way too long already!

So to you: is your life affected by such issues with public services?:

- is your work affected by public funding? How are you finding it if so?
- do you have kids in school? How are you finding the school services? Any cuts affect you here?
- do you have elderly family or any family in need of NHS or social care?
- do you have any family affected by zero hours contracts or in need of charity support?
- as you walk down the street in your town, do you notice the increase in homeless people? Do you ever speak to them?

So let's leave out the links to reports - tell me a bit about your experience with the above.

You’ll have to excuse me as I have been incredibly busy over the last few days and have neither the time nor the inclination to answer all the posts on this thread that I could take issue with, but thought this to be interesting.

My immediate reaction when I saw your questions was to wonder what you think the point in my answering would be. Some weeks ago I told you that I had never voted Tory in General Election, but you dismissed that out of hand as it did not serve your purpose so why would you not do the same if my responses to your questions continued not to suit you?

My second thought when I read your questions was that I didn’t particularly want to answer them. I generally choose to be a private individual and leave posting about lifestyle, education, holiday habits, occupation and wealth to others. I find it a bit cringeworthy when people do and, in any event, I note that on the thread where you dismissed the comment about my voting record, you also ignored the line where I said: In my typical working day I have to be able to interact and relate to people from across the whole range of society, to the point where I sometimes joke to the interested that I have to be several different people every day and sometimes forget who the real me is.

So I’ll talk in hypotheticals. It’s possible that I was educated at South Grove - hardly a privileged start, but one for which I’m very grateful. In our first year the lad who sat next to me in the form room disappeared for several weeks. When he returned he was asked by the teacher where he had been and replied that he hadn’t been able to attend as he had no shoes. This was in the mid-70s with a Labour government in power. Perhaps he hadn’t got the memo that it is only Tory governments that impoverish people?

I think some people on here already suspect what I do for a living (others dismiss it and say that I am merely an avid Wikipedia user, which is fine with me). Hypothetically speaking I have worked within the Criminal Justice system for more than 30 years. As I hinted in the passage that I referred to above and which you ignored, that means interacting with people from all walks of life from Appeal Court judges through to heroin addicts who have no life beyond stealing to fund their habits.

It’s possible that I have visited clients at home when it has been the only way to get instructions out of them. Many of the people who come into the system have fallen through the cracks in the pavement of society and I recall one home visit where I had to avoid the dog sh1t on the floor and the syringes on the settee where I sat. It’s also possible that I have spoken at length in cells and interview rooms with many homeless people - some of them so often that we will greet each other on first name terms when I see them on the streets of the cities where I work. I’ve heard at length about the many complex reasons that put them there.

Hypothetically speaking again, it’s possible that I do a deal of pro-bono (i.e. free) work – peaking at close to 20% of my time one year. That generally involves helping people to get access to justice where they can’t afford to pay and are ineligible for legal aid. It’s also hypothetically possible that I have volunteered in a Citizen’s Advice Bureau providing advice or pointing people in the right direction on a range of subjects including debt and housing.

And of course, anyone working in the CJS will have seen cuts in the Police, CPS, Courts, Probation Service (or NOMS as they prefer to be called) and Prison Service. Earnings from Legal Aid have been on the real-terms way down for twenty or so years (because ‘fat cat’ lawyers are an easy target) with many solicitors firms stopping to undertake that work because they can’t bear the losses involved.

I may even know a BHS pension holder.

All of the above is hypothetically true. If it is actually true, you can understand why I might look at some of the posts on here and wonder what their bigoted, plastic revolutionary, Wolfie Smith wannabee authors have actually done whilst others have, at times, taken on ‘the establishment’. If I were inclined to do so, I might actually post that in response to some of their posts, but I am not sufficiently rude or stupid to do so as I accept the possibility that some of them might have actually come out from behind their keyboards, blinked in the daylight and actually done something at some point in their lives.

So there you have it. Feel free to ignore it as it is only hypothetical and I appreciate that it won’t suit your purpose. The better reason for ignoring it, however, is that it is completely irrelevant to the debate, as is your experience of life. Politics in the country means choosing between two sets of lies. You can have the Tory lie that the NHS and other public services are funded to the degree that they need to be to deliver what the people of this country want, or you can have the Labour lie, that they can tax, borrow and spend to the degree that would be necessary to put them right without any adverse consequences. The real difference between you and I is that you can see nothing threatening within Labour policies, whereas I can. Dis-incentivising businesses to operate, employ people and pay taxes in this country is not the answer. Borrowing to nationalise the utilities and Royal Mail for purely ideological reasons (if there is any other reason nobody on here has been able to articulate it) is not the answer and slipping the leash on the TUs certainly isn’t; I appreciate that the 2017 Labour manifesto said very little about industrial relations, but I also appreciate that Len McCluskey spends a lot of time standing next to The Great Leader (with practise, I fully expect him to start ostentatiously drinking a glass of water whilst The Great Leader speaks)

In other words, re-hashing the failed policies of the 70s will not help this country.

[KerrAvon]

That has been the EU position. But we have not started trade negotiations and this position may well be negotiated if it can be argued that tariff free trade and friction-less borders will benefit EU business too. Surely you should go into negotiations with all options open and your angle that would get YOU the best deal as well as the best deal for the EU.

Again, to remove this position before negotiations begin - why? How do you KNOW it isn't going to happen?

(I would agree however that it is unlikely, but that doesn't mean you should just throw your best outcome in the bin before you enter the negotiating room. Does it??!)

I see that you are following the current Labour line of attack. Labour put up Kier Starmer (a thoroughly decent bloke) for the Today programme on Wednesday and you have mirrored his words. Even The Great Leader seems to have spotted the problem with that stance, however:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-jeremy-corbyn

I do wonder if the Labour position means that they have given up any hope of an early election and are now intent upon simply nipping at the government’s heels with criticism of this type. I say that as I can’t believe that Labour would seriously run such a line in an election campaign.

The fact is that is the EU have always made it clear that access to the Single Market is inextricably linked to freedom of movement and for that reason, I think running upon such a policy would open up the real schism in Labour, between the socially liberal people who run the party and the grassroots where views on immigration are often closer to those of UKIP or even further right. You say that the Leave campaign created hostility towards immigration whereas I think they tapped a well that was already there. Try Tykes Mad, where the politics of the average poster is skewed further to the Left than on here, but where animal’s pre-referendum comments about people speaking Polish around him at work are mild compared to some views expressed on there. Exile Tyke has posted that I am a Muslim seemingly as a form of abuse.

The EU cannot budge on freedom of movement and, hence, Single Market membership with the UK as to do so would upset the relationship with the EFTA countries and the carefully crafted fudge with Switzerland:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ations-with-eu