| Non-motoring > Labour's turn for the gutter.... | Computing Issues |
| Thread Author: No FM2R | Replies: 108 |
|
New Sun 7 Nov 21 14:17
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - No FM2R
|
|
Why are our politicians, of any party, so b***** awful? www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/04/mp-claudia-webbe-given-suspended-sentence-for-harassing-woman |
|
New Sun 7 Nov 21 15:24
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Ted
|
|
Acid attack threat ? Harassment ?......2 weeks suspended and unpaid work ! Oh, hang on, she's establishment, isn't she ? Ted |
|
New Sun 7 Nov 21 15:27
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Bromptonaut
|
|
Webbe is another of the accidental MPs I mentioned in another thread. The 2019 election, while probably inevitable given the outcome in 2017 and subsequent chaos in the ruling party, was not planned until 2022. This put pressure on selection processes. Candidates who might have been eliminated in a longer lasting and more rigorous competition were selected. In Leicester East there was the added factor that the sitting Member, Keith Vaz, was mired in controversy. Unless she appeals successfully, and I'm not holding my breath, a recall petition is likely. Unfortunately, if the appeal succeeds or the recall fails, then she can draw her salary until the next GE. She's lost the Whip and party membership. I don't think she'll get either back although that might be difficult to justify in the face of a triumphant acquittal on appeal. |
|
New Sun 7 Nov 21 16:00
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Manatee
|
|
In fairness to Labour I will note that she will be chucked out - Starmer has told her to resign, and will institute a recall if she doesn't. I'd just like to see the Conservatives do that. The shocking elements of the Owen Paterson affair (which is not comparable in any way with alleged acid throwing threats except insofar as both are unacceptable) are that - Johnson wanted to change the rules retrospectively to put his corrupt behaviour within them - What Paterson was doing was bent whether or not ot was within the rules - MPs were being leaned on to vote the right way with threats that their constituencies would be denied funding. |
|
New Sun 7 Nov 21 16:07
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - No FM2R
|
|
I think trying to get some party political position out of it is silly. She, Vaz, Paterson, and so many others are all appalling people. They shouldn't be defended, justified, reviled or damned according to their political allegiance. We need to massively increase the standards to which we hold *all* our politicians. |
|
New Sun 7 Nov 21 16:23
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> I think trying to get some party political position out of it is silly. There is a position, which I suppose is political, about how appalling people in the governing party who are caught by the system such as Patel and very nearly Paterson, are allowed to escape the natural consequence of their appalling behaviour. That such things go on is wholly down to the appalling person currently in the top job. Very little defence for him other than via lackeys like Useless Eustice who was on Marr etc duty today. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 7 Nov 21 at 16:24
|
|
New Sun 7 Nov 21 17:06
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - No FM2R
|
|
>>That such things go on is wholly down to the appalling person currently in the top job. No, it is not. It is down to the standard of integrity and stability of our politicians. Our political system is infested with a steady stream of bad behaviour. Taking a party political approach to that is exactly what gets us sanctimony versus unjustifiable defence. I posted about a behaviour of a Labour politician and then some rush forward to say why Conservatives are worse, it's the fault of Johnson etc. etc. any thing to avoid the current issue. Didn't you used to called it "whataboutery"? I always found that an irritating term but hoisting and petards and all that., The tendency to condemn and revile someone from the 'away' party and yet attempt to defend or minimise the offence of someone in the 'home' party is exactly why this stuff continues. s*** behaviour is s*** behaviour and it should be dealt with as such. Everybody should drop on an offender, even when it is their mate or at least on their side. Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 7 Nov 21 at 17:08
|
|
New Sun 7 Nov 21 18:07
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> No, it is not. It is down to the standard of integrity and stability of >> our politicians. Our political system is infested with a steady stream of bad behaviour. Taking >> a party political approach to that is exactly what gets us sanctimony versus unjustifiable defence. We're in danger of comparing bananas with elephants. Ms Webbe, who was a back bench opposition MP, stands convicted of a criminal offence. For whatever reason she seems to have an issue with a woman having a close friendship with her 'fellow'. As I've already pointed out she may have been selected at haste. Nobody on the Labour side has sought to excuse or minimise her behaviour which is purely witihn the triangle of herself, her chap and woman #2. That's a very different thing from tribulations in government where the party in power tries to get an MP found to be contravening long standing principles off the hook and that such action is part of a pattern. Arguably the fact you titled this thread Labour's turn for the gutter.... suggests you're letting your undies show... |
|
New Sun 7 Nov 21 18:12
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - No FM2R
|
|
>> the fact you titled this thread Labour's turn for the gutter.... suggests you're letting your undies show... Gosh, you really cannot take criticism of your beloved party, can you? Did you read my first sentence? "Why are our politicians, of any party, so b***** awful?" This report was a Labour politician,. the last was a Conservative, it doesn't matter, they are all crap but it upsets you to admit it when it's "your" side. I have no time for the integrity of *any8 party. All political parties are crap. Far too many of our politicians are crap. But for as long as you continue to have your little party political argument it won't get addressed. Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 7 Nov 21 at 18:16
|
|
New Sun 7 Nov 21 18:15
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - No FM2R
|
| Ha ha ha ha, you got a frownie and it wasn't me! ha ha ha ha ha |
|
New Sun 7 Nov 21 17:09
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - smokie
|
|
Ever so slightly OT and not of the gravity of the stuff above really, but for anyone with Twitter, "Nadim Zahawi himself offers up information that he hasn’t read the report on Owen Paterson. "Then when it’s put to him that he just voted on something he hadn’t read, he denies he said that. !All in under a minute" from the Beeb yesterday twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1457046898603331584 Oh, and (not from Twitter) the ever changing story of Lord Bethell's personal phone, on which he carried out Government business (which was consider cronyism) and was unable to find when first asked - together with his explanation of why the potentially interesting messages no longer exist. goodlawproject.org/update/bethell-admits-deleting-whatsapp/ Shifty bunch, the lot of them |
|
New Sun 7 Nov 21 17:20
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - No FM2R
|
|
>>Oh, and (not from Twitter) the ever changing story of Lord Bethell's personal phone, A prime example; He should be sanctioned by all. In business I would be disciplined if working on an important contract allocation I a) used my own phone and b) couldn't provide the messages when asked. Can his a*** now. That'll stop the others. Or at least begin the process. But even handed, of everybody, never being swayed by party political [dis]advantage |
|
New Sun 7 Nov 21 17:44
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Manatee
|
|
>> I think trying to get some party political position out of it is silly. >> >> She, Vaz, Paterson, and so many others are all appalling people. They shouldn't be defended, >> justified, reviled or damned according to their political allegiance. >> >> We need to massively increase the standards to which we hold *all* our politicians. The party political point makes itself. My point was that whilst there will inevitably be bad eggs, the relevant party's reaction to it matters more. In a world where the governing party is prepared to retain corrupt MPs, you end up with an almost totally corrupt government. It's not about rules, it's about what's right and what's wrong. Something I don't think Johnson understands. |
|
New Sun 7 Nov 21 17:56
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - No FM2R
|
|
>>Something I don't think Johnson understands. As opposed to Blair? For example, or any other leader? Corbyn, Clegg, Brown, Thatcher and so on and so on. I know you really, really want it to be a party political issue where the Conservatives are crap. But you're SOOL, they all are. And this desperate need to see the other side as another side is behind a lot of its continuation. |
|
New Sun 7 Nov 21 18:01
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - No FM2R
|
| www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/26/labour-should-get-house-order-lecturing-tories-sleaze/ |
|
New Sun 7 Nov 21 18:01
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - No FM2R
|
| It will start to get better when we refuse to accept it, or minimise it, or justify it, of ignore it, from ANYBODY. |
|
New Sun 7 Nov 21 18:02
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - No FM2R
|
| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_scandals_in_the_United_Kingdom |
|
New Sun 7 Nov 21 18:08
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/26/labour-should-get-house-order-lecturing-tories-sleaze/ As I said, you're letting your undies show. |
|
New Sun 7 Nov 21 18:13
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Zero
|
| One lot are ideologically unhinged, and the other lot are either corrupt or perverted by birthright. |
|
New Sun 7 Nov 21 18:14
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - No FM2R
|
|
>As I said, you're letting your undies show. Is that what you've got? Your constantly, blind, immature and limited party political blinkers drive you to make the discussion about anything other than a criticism of your beloved Labour Party. NONE of them are acceptable. Not Labour, Not Conservative, not any of them. |
|
New Mon 8 Nov 21 14:31
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/26/labour-should-get-house-order-lecturing-tories-sleaze/ Not even current news; seven months ago. For the record Apsana Begum was acquitted. Onasanya was long gone. She was another who should never have been selected. Liverpool is a matter for serious concern. My son is an adopted Scouser and well to the left of me. He sees the intervention in Liverpool as a political act. I disagree. I've read Max Caller's report on the Council. When something as basic as gifts and hospitality registers are not being kept then there's likely to be much more serious stuff afoot too. Augean Stables stuff. Starmer as good as said so too. |
|
New Sun 7 Nov 21 18:07
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - commerdriver
|
|
Most of us on this forum are at least in our 50s, we can all name crooked politicians of the last 30 years in all parties including party leaders, it is NOT a party political thing It is, in many ways, harder to name a decent politician, than a sleazy one,just look at the expenses issue. As for the inability to keep it in their trousers. No difference between the parties at all. |
|
New Sun 7 Nov 21 18:14
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - No FM2R
|
|
>> Most of us on this forum are at least in our 50s, we can all >> name crooked politicians of the last 30 years in all parties including party leaders, it >> is NOT a party political thing >> It is, in many ways, harder to name a decent politician, than a sleazy one,just >> look at the expenses issue. >> As for the inability to keep it in their trousers. >> >> No difference between the parties at all. That. |
|
New Sun 7 Nov 21 18:23
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Manatee
|
|
How many more times, it's not the offenders it's what they do about them. This government, the party in government, has repeatedly shown itself to be tolerant of behaviour that should have been a resigning matter, not that it has much option when a leading offender is the leader. And I let this aspect go, but there is a world of difference between Paterson taking money to influence policy and Claudia Webbe's messed up private life, for which her party is kicking her out anyway. As I said, the point makes itself between these two events, a linkage that wasn't made by me. Last edited by: Manatee on Sun 7 Nov 21 at 18:23
|
|
New Sun 7 Nov 21 18:31
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - No FM2R
|
|
>>How many more times, it's not the offenders it's what they do about them. As many times as you feel the need to say it, though I'm surprised it makes you feel better. I still think it's utter rubbish. There is no difference in the behaviour of the various parties. |
|
New Sun 7 Nov 21 19:42
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> I still think it's utter rubbish. There is no difference in the behaviour of the >> various parties. The bolded bit is fundamentally incorrect. What we're seeing now isn't even an incremental change; it's akin to the Republicans and Trump over the pond. Both parties have decent people but a fish rots from the head... I'm not going to respond scattergun to comments from (mostly) NoFM2R but I will defend my position. At all times here, back on HJ and elsewhere I have never made any secret that my politics are those of Labour; specifically 'Old Labour' in the model set by the late Tony Crosland. For most of the time since 1992, excepting a period when I left over the rightward drift of Blair and specifically the actions of Blunkett at Education, I've been a paid up member. If anybody has an issue with that then they can 'aim off' appropriately when responding. I'm not aware of anybody being an 'out' member of the Conservative party but without naming names, and letting posts speak for themselves, there are clearly plenty of conservatives on here. Ms Webbe should not have been selected; a more rigorous process would hopefully have 'outed' the skeletons in her cupboard. Same goes for Rob Roberts. Relationship 'stuff' though is on a different page and level to sanctioning the behaviour of Paterson, Patel etc. Webbe has had the whip withdrawn and is no longer a LAbour member. Not clear exactly where Rob Roberts is but there's an appearance he's being readmitted. Same happened with the former Member for Dover, currently a guest of Her Majesty. I genuinely fear for the viability of the democratic model both here and over the pond. Until Johnson accepts that the controls of out albeit unwritten constitution apply to him too he's pushing us in the wrong direction. Another example here: www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/07/watchdog-ministers-neutrality-code-top-bbc-bfi-hires Johnson seems determined to move the goalposts to get Paul Dacre at OFFCOM too. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 7 Nov 21 at 19:46
|
|
New Sun 7 Nov 21 19:19
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Terry
|
|
It is the behaviour of those in elected office, and the party leadership who should discipline them that is at issue. Labour would be unable to do that which Boris tried over Paterson simply because he currently has the power to abuse the system. Labour are fundamentally no better. Unions who for decades have sought to influence Labour policy are no more justified than Tories influenced by business - both are protecting the interests of their "members". We should call out unacceptable behaviour irrespective of party, not create doubtful arguments to defend the indefensible. Politics in this country are broken, and the reason why most hold politicians in such low esteem. Problems go back decades: - reform of House of Lords - what is its remit, how should members be selected - local democratic processes disconnected from national - separate rules for Scotland, Wales, NI, and no England Parliament - role of the monarchy - responsibility and accountability disconnected from funding What Boris has demonstrated over the last few years is a lack of integrity and a willingness to abuse the system in pursuit of the goals he thinks right. Despite my slghtly right of centre leaning I hope the party dump him well before the next election - carrying responsibility with him for the perceived Covid and Brexit mistakes that have unquestionably emerged. |
|
New Sun 7 Nov 21 20:03
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Manatee
|
|
>> Labour are fundamentally no better. Unions who for decades have sought to influence Labour policy >> are no more justified than Tories influenced by business - both are protecting the interests >> of their "members". Labour is a labour movement, or was. The ties to Unions are hardly secret or a surprise. And FWIW I don't think being influenced by business is at all the same as being influenced by labour (small l). Government spends vast amounts of (our) money and the cause of all this "lobbying" is who they might decide to favour with their "investment opportunities". Uniserve Limited is a logistics firm controlled by Iain Liddell. Prior to the pandemic, the firm had no experience in supplying PPE, yet the firm landed a staggering £300m+ in PPE contracts from the DHSC and an eye-watering £572m deal to provide freight services for the supply of PPE. The company shares the same address as Cabinet Minister Julia Lopez MP and is based in her constituency. goodlawproject.org/update/vip-lane-companies-revealed/ |
|
New Sun 7 Nov 21 20:06
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Bromptonaut
|
|
^^^^^ That. Exactly. |
|
New Mon 8 Nov 21 10:59
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Kevin
|
|
I woudn't rely on anything from Good Law Project (or Jolyon Maugham) as trustworthy information. IIRC the case he brought against the Govt for PPE contracts was kicked out by the judge because he wasn't even competent enough to submit his paperwork to the court on time. He's also going to have to explain in court his "factually inaccurate" claims. www.abingdonhealth.com/news/clarification-regarding-factual-inaccuracies-judicial-review-proceedings/ |
|
New Mon 8 Nov 21 11:24
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> I woudn't rely on anything from Good Law Project (or Jolyon Maugham) as trustworthy information. >> >> IIRC the case he brought against the Govt for PPE contracts was kicked out by >> the judge because he wasn't even competent enough to submit his paperwork to the court >> on time. >> >> He's also going to have to explain in court his "factually inaccurate" claims. >> >> www.abingdonhealth.com/news/clarification-regarding-factual-inaccuracies-judicial-review-proceedings/ The Good Law Project (goodlawproject.org/) is a campaign body using the law to hold government to account where it's said to be playing fast and loose. It is what it is. They're not the first claimant to lose out because of failure to comply with time limits and they won't be the last. Defendant states claimant's case contains factual inaccuracy and vice versa is in 'oodathortit' territory. If all the facts were agreed then the case might be settled... |
|
New Mon 8 Nov 21 12:56
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Kevin
|
|
It's a crowd-funded set up to satisfy Jolyon Maugham's self promoting ego. They don't hold Govt. to account, they bring spurious nuisance cases against the Govt. This Govt. badly needs holding to account but Good Law Project is the last bunch of incompetent nutters I want doing it. >They're not the first claimant to lose out because of failure to comply with time limits and they won't be the last. Is that supposed to be an excuse or justification for their incompetence? They actually lost out because they couldn't be a***d to either send it by courier or registered post and then didn't even check to make sure that it had arrived. They knew the latest date that it had to be submitted but still failed to comply. Speaks volumes of how serious they take their campaign doesn't it? >Defendant states claimant's case contains factual inaccuracy and vice versa >is in 'oodathortit' territory. If all the facts were agreed then the case might be settled... I'm afraid that bit of legal jargon is new to me but as I said: "He's also going to have to explain in court his "factually inaccurate" claims." Unless, of course, he backs down at the last minute. |
|
New Mon 8 Nov 21 13:05
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - sooty123
|
| Wasn't he the guy that claimed he killed a fox with a baseball bat in his back garden, or was that someone else? |
|
New Mon 8 Nov 21 14:00
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Wasn't he the guy that claimed he killed a fox with a baseball bat in >> his back garden, or was that someone else? Same bloke. Thread from time is here: www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=27472 |
|
New Mon 8 Nov 21 14:05
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - sooty123
|
| Ah right, I thought the name rang a bell. Strange chap. |
|
New Mon 8 Nov 21 14:16
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> It's a crowd-funded set up to satisfy Jolyon Maugham's self promoting ego. They don't hold >> Govt. to account, they bring spurious nuisance cases against the Govt. >> This Govt. badly needs holding to account but Good Law Project is the last bunch >> of incompetent nutters I want doing it. That's your view. We differ. Fair enough, >> Is that supposed to be an excuse or justification for their incompetence? >> They actually lost out because they couldn't be a***d to either send it by courier Explanation. Government lawyers plaid, Duke of York style on a technicality. They were aware of the case. www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/good-law-projects-ppe-claim-fails-after-service-blunder/5109087.article >> >Defendant states claimant's case contains factual inaccuracy and vice versa >> >is in 'oodathortit' territory. If all the facts were agreed then the case might be >> settled... >> >> I'm afraid that bit of legal jargon is new to me but as I said: >> "He's also going to have to explain in court his "factually inaccurate" claims." They, it's GLP who are the claimant and I don't think JM will be instructed, will have to deal with a defendant who avers their claim to be 'inaccurate'. Mandy Rice Davies applies. |
|
New Mon 8 Nov 21 14:52
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Kevin
|
|
>Explanation. Government lawyers plaid, Duke of York style on a technicality. They were aware of the case. BS. It is not a "technicality" if it is sent to the wrong email address no matter how you would like to see it. Nor is it the defendant's responsibility to sort out the claimant's Fups. Argue with the judge if you don't like it but TGLP didn't get very far with that and neither will you. >They, it's GLP who are the claimant and I don't think JM will be instructed, will have to deal with >a defendant who avers their claim to be 'inaccurate'. You're falling back to argue semantics. The Good Law Project is JM. It's his vehicle. He founded it. |
|
New Sun 7 Nov 21 20:10
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Labour are fundamentally no better. Unions who for decades have sought to influence Labour policy >> are no more justified than Tories influenced by business - both are protecting the interests >> of their "members". The Labour Party was set up as the political wing of the Trade Union movement. It shouldn't be any surprise that it protects the interests of union members; that's literally what it was there for. Why "members" need what look like pejorative quotes is a mystery. |
|
New Sun 7 Nov 21 20:54
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - No FM2R
|
|
So fundamentally you're upset the the Labour Party might get criticised and prefer to bury your head in the sand And you wonder why it can't get elected even when their competition is the current shower. Can't reply in detail because TL:DR. All I can say is that from what I did read you should be comfortable how well and appropriately you represent your party. |
|
New Mon 8 Nov 21 10:27
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Terry
|
|
Parliament is elected to serve all, not just those who are union members. All includes businesses, old age pensioners, children, weathly, poor, disabled etc etc. Justifying "Labour" (with a big L) as the party of "labour" (little L) is indefensible - it then becomes only a sectional interest group. Whether you support the policies they represent is a matter of opinion. Personally I am not clear what they are. That Tories won the last election reflects Labours failure to communicate them convincingly - they are equally responsibility for Tory success. Sadly they are failing as an effective opposition (very much needed) despite the evident abuse of democratic process by Boris. |
|
New Mon 8 Nov 21 11:35
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Parliament is elected to serve all, not just those who are union members. >> >> All includes businesses, old age pensioners, children, weathly, poor, disabled etc etc. >> Members of Parliament are elected to serve their constituencies. They stand on a manifesto which sets out their approach to businesses, old age pensioners, children, wealthy, poor, disabled etc etc.. The Trade Union movement was formed to improve the lot of working people in their employment. The Labour Party followed to pursue the same objective in Parliament. Historically, but less so now, their manifesto reflected a broadly Trade Union point of view. A different thing to a sectional interest. Equally though, if a party stands on a manifesto of sectional interest and wins a majority of seats then you'll get a government of sectional interest. Maybe that's what we've got right now? |
|
New Mon 8 Nov 21 12:32
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - sooty123
|
|
>> >> . A different thing >> to a sectional interest. >> >> How so? |
|
New Mon 8 Nov 21 12:52
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - PeterS
|
|
I’m unclear how a conservative party that stands on a manifesto setting out their approach to a broad range of matters affecting the country is standing on a manifesto of sectional interest, whereas a Labour Party that does the same is not, just because it’s ostensibly representing a Trade Union stance. It’s a strange kind of political dogma that sees the same approach in different light depending on whether it’s ‘their’ party or not, and whether the views are theirs. |
|
New Mon 8 Nov 21 14:01
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> I’m unclear how a conservative party that stands on a manifesto setting out their approach >> to a broad range of matters affecting the country is standing on a manifesto of >> sectional interest, whereas a Labour Party that does the same is not, just because it’s >> ostensibly representing a Trade Union stance. It’s a strange kind of political dogma that sees >> the same approach in different light depending on whether it’s ‘their’ party or not, and >> whether the views are theirs. I'm happy to adopt Manatee's explanation. |
|
New Mon 8 Nov 21 18:17
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - PeterS
|
|
So there is no difference, just a different perspective. And a believe that one perspective is ‘better’’. The reality is that politics in this country is broken; a weak opposition is not to blame but is certainly shirking it’s responsibility in the current system to effectively hold the government to account. And that’s a shame. Having voted for all parties in the past at some point, I’d struggle to vote for any of them at the moment. However, the conservatives are generally more ruthless in getting rid of leaders that threaten their electability. So I live in hope ;)
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 9 Nov 21 at 02:46
|
|
New Mon 8 Nov 21 18:25
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - No FM2R
|
|
>>So there is no difference, just a different perspective. And a believe that one perspective is ‘better’’ Absolutely. That because it comes from a particular group of people it must be more valid, or more correct, than if it came from another group of people. |
|
New Mon 8 Nov 21 18:28
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - No FM2R
|
|
p.s. An accusation which Conservative voters seem unbothered by but it seems to send Labour devotees into apoplexy. It reminds me of an old slogan from college which said that the difference between the main parties was that the Conservatives did not care what the electorate wanted and simply delivered what the party wanted, whereas Labour would tell the electorate what they wanted because they knew better what was good for them and then felt righteous in delivering that. Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 8 Nov 21 at 18:29
|
|
New Mon 8 Nov 21 18:22
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - No FM2R
|
|
>>It’s a strange kind of political dogma that sees the same approach in different light depending on whether it’s ‘their’ party or not, and whether the views are theirs. Strange as in "unusual"? Not really. It mostly seems par for the course in the world generally. Blind, unintelligent and unimaginative of course, but strange? Not really. Therein lies the problem with a party political fixation. |
|
New Mon 8 Nov 21 12:41
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Manatee
|
|
>> Parliament is elected to serve all, not just those who are union members. Of course. All citizens if you like. All MPs have fundamentally the same responsibilities to the electorate whatever their party. I qualify that only by saying that they might well have been elected on a particular manifesto. As to what their duty actually is, MPs and the electorate have opposite views on that. yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/08/13/are-mps-elected-exercise-their-own-judgement-or-do >> Justifying "Labour" (with a big L) as the party of "labour" (little L) is indefensible >> - it then becomes only a sectional interest group. A narrow definition of labour, but a fair point if overstressed. labour to me means 'not capital'. Of course we're all capitalists if we have a pension fund, so really "controller of capital" might be more useful. It's pretty clear that the Tory party thinks its most important clients are the controllers of capital. Who frequently of course do not materially risk their own capital at all. >> Whether you support the policies they represent is a matter of opinion. Personally I am >> not clear what they are. I'm pretty clear where Labour are coming from. But did you watch Marr yesterday? He was pressing Starmer, who was saying Labour would get much more aligned with the EU, to say that Labour would seek to rejoin it. It's obvious that Starmer would love to do that but a lot of traditional Labour supporters were Leave voters, and Labour first has to get elected to do anything at all. They all inevitably play the game of trying not to offend anybody, or to give the other lot something to attack. All of course are in favour of motherhood and apple pie. And if they are outright dishonest, would probably promise free beer as well. >> That Tories won the last election reflects Labours failure to communicate them convincingly - they >> are equally responsibility for Tory success. Sadly they are failing as an effective opposition (very >> much needed) despite the evident abuse of democratic process by Boris. What would you have Labour do that it isn't doing? Nobody seems to care that Johnson is crooked. Labour's flirtation with Corbynism has cost it dear, but the subversion of both standards and effective democracy has really been down to populism, which seems to be Johnson's stock in trade. The Conservatives having fumbled and messed up Brexit for 3 years, they were re-elected on a tide of "Get Brexit Done". Unbelievable. And then they continued to make the worst possible fist of it. What did they think would happen when they poured sand into the mechanisms of trade with our nearest neighbours? That said I am bitterly disappointed with the state of Labour. The Corbynites are still there and are putting more energy into attacking Starmer than into fighting the Conservatives. If we aren't careful we will become a one-party state, especially when Scotland's gone. Labour looks weak and exhausted by its internal conflicts, but it's vital IMO to get rid of the Conservatives as soon as possible - or alt least the current version of them. They are dangerous. |
|
New Mon 8 Nov 21 17:02
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - No FM2R
|
|
>> Labour looks weak and exhausted by its internal conflicts I'd have added outdated, irrelevant, ineffective and unpopular as well. Probably unelectable as well. , but it's vital IMO to get >> rid of the Conservatives as soon as possible - or alt least the current version >> of them Not much point if you haven't got an alternative. A change of leader is not likely to change much, they're all much the same In truth a change of Government won't do much more but it would at least be a start. . |
|
New Mon 8 Nov 21 19:21
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Manatee
|
|
>> Not much point if you haven't got an alternative. A change of leader is not >> likely to change much, they're all much the same In truth a change of Government >> won't do much more but it would at least be a start. What was in my mind was that the rot might still be stopped. Fanciful I know. You might think that all politicians are dissembling, self-serving, nest feathering, incompetent careerists but the current shower is scrapings of the barrel even by that low standard. They act more like an organised crime group than a party in government. They are also ideologues and the ideology they pursue, sticking it to the EU, is wrecking the already wrecked economy. The longer this goes on the more like-minded specimens will displace the old school and the lower the likelihood of any improvement. I want to see them go for their corruption. A price needs to be paid and they and their successors of any party need to know that it is their base moral standards that have sunk them. Even if that means a new leader who rehabilitates the Tories for the next election, I can live with that if s/he cleans the stables. Sadly there's not much hope of getting this behaviour back in the bottle unless the electorate demands higher standards. Last edited by: Manatee on Mon 8 Nov 21 at 19:23
|
|
New Mon 8 Nov 21 20:02
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - No FM2R
|
|
>>You might think that all politicians are dissembling, self-serving, nest feathering, incompetent careerists I do. I guess reality says that some must be ok, but most are not. >> the current shower is scrapings of the barrel even by that low standard. Are they though? b***** awful to be sure, but perhaps just less competent and less careful more than actually more worse. More an illustration of Hanlon's Razor I think. It's not like they are a group of devils occupying a space previous occupied by angels. Working our weary way back through history doesn't really change the picture much, does it. I think declaring the Government the most corrupt thing ever is jumping on a bandwagon with enthusiasm. They're just normal s*** with added stupidity highlighted by the fact that currently we have a one party system. >>unless the electorate demands higher standards. And part of that will be applying higher standards to all without party oriented fear or favour. Rather than the current myopia. Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 8 Nov 21 at 20:05
|
|
New Mon 8 Nov 21 20:25
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> I think declaring the Government the most corrupt thing ever is jumping on a bandwagon >> with enthusiasm. They're just normal s*** with added stupidity highlighted by the fact that currently >> we have a one party system. I really think you're missing something. Sure, governments with large majorities whether 66-70 Wilson, post 83 Thatcher or Blair did stuff that they couldn't consider if they only had a working majority. This time though they've got Johnson in Number 10. If you read his antecedents from his Master at Eton through Max Hastings, his record as MP for Henley and as Mayor of London he's in a class of his own for lying and caring for nobody but himself. Nobody seems able to nail him or lay a glove. Somehow he's managed to get himself beyond the normal checks/balances and surrounded by ministers like Patel, Eustice, Kwarteng etc he's master of all he surveys. The nearest comparison is Trump. If he were to walk in front of a BorisMaster tomorrow his successor would be Liz Truss.... Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 8 Nov 21 at 20:26
|
|
New Mon 8 Nov 21 20:32
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - No FM2R
|
|
>> I really think you're missing something. Of course you do. Because I do not have the same party political myopia that you have. We're looking at it from different places, where yours is biased by something you really want to be true. I think I'm mostly immune to party politics since even if I take personalities out of it, or integrity, honesty, decency etc. etc. I don't agree with any one party on everything. For me to like a party it would have to cherry pick ideas from across the whole spectrum and dump a load of outdated, privileged or 60s socialist, self-serving crap. It won't happen so where I can I vote for whoever annoys me least or who sways with major issues while flinging rocks at all liars, self-serving slobs, and t***s whichever group they align with. You would be better pouring your scorn on your own party and forcing them to improve and step up rather than simply blaming everybody else. The main reason the masses are not uprising is because bad as Johnson is, nobody is better enough to cause any interest or enthusiasm. We need an effective second party right now, because that is what will keep a Government on the straight and narrow, whichever way around they are. We have no effective alternative or opposition. Focus on fixing that. |
|
New Mon 8 Nov 21 20:53
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Of course you do. Because I do not have the same party political myopia that >> you have. We're looking at it from different places, where yours is biased by something >> you really want to be true. You seem blinded by the fact that I've chosen to put my politics and associated party allegiance on the table. While you claim to be non partisan the use of phrases like socialist, self-serving crap doesn't shout open minded. My observation is that your instincts are conservative - free reign to the markets etc. Labour need to step up and challenge Johnson but as already noted it seems almost impossible to lay a glove on him. It's not his politics on the left/right spectrum (which to be honest are impossible to place) that frighten me. It's the willingness of his own party and the other mechanisms, including the Speaker, to let him get away with trampling all over what passes for/remains of our constitution. Can we have John Bercow back? Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 8 Nov 21 at 20:55
|
|
New Mon 8 Nov 21 21:12
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - No FM2R
|
|
>>You seem blinded by the fact that I've chosen to put my politics and associated party allegiance on the table No, I just find it considerably diminishes your credibility. Bias does that. You seem unable to see past it. To be honest I only ever read your first paragraph which is where the dig usually is. There's nothing about your political statements that I read anymore. Well, perhaps nothing is a bit strong, let's go with not much. >>While you claim to be non partisan the use of phrases like socialist, self-serving crap doesn't shout open minded. My observation is that your instincts are conservative - free reign to the markets etc. Because you think in "party" terms and you don't seem to be able to comprehend those people that do not. My very problem is that my beliefs do not fit a party. For example, I do very much believe in free reign to the markets as far as is possible. I also believe very strongly in the NHS and a Welfare State. I do hate self-serving crap, sponging political correct wasters, and the wilfully idle. They can starve in the gutter for all of me. On the other hand all those that need help should get it; of whatever colour creed orientation or letter of the alphabet. By and large I think self-declared 'socialists' are more in love with telling other people what they should do and controlling their lives than they are in actually doing good. That said the majority of the conservative politicians are outrageously self-serving, more like the peers of 150 years ago than a politician that the modern world needs. You are more comfortable with labels. Labels make me feel quite the opposite, are rarely appropriate and rarely fit me. Other than bad-tempered and intolerant git. That fits me. |
|
New Mon 8 Nov 21 21:14
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - No FM2R
|
| Bercow is and was an a***. You only want him because of your party bias and the enjoyment of watching him give the Government a bad time not because he was a good or worthwhile man. |
|
New Mon 8 Nov 21 21:24
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Bercow is and was an a***. You only want him because of your party bias >> and the enjoyment of watching him give the Government a bad time not because he >> was a good or worthwhile man. From what I've read I'm not sure I'd want him in my social circle either. But giving government a hard time, hauling Ministers into the House to account for themselves and being a counterweight to the PM/Whips/Leader of the House seems to me to be in the Speaker's job description. |
|
New Mon 8 Nov 21 21:43
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - No FM2R
|
|
>>But giving government a hard time, hauling Ministers into the House to account for themselves and being a counterweight to the PM/Whips/Leader of the House seems to me to be in the Speaker's job description. Genuine question; is it? I thought it was supposed to be as close to objective and unbiased as reasonably possible? |
|
New Mon 8 Nov 21 23:35
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Bobby
|
|
So you are all collectively saying the current system is broken. What are your suggestions to fix it? And I note that no one had mentioned the role of the press and all the financial Brexit backers in all this. Brexit has proved that money and the press can get a result. How do you counteract that? Our issues aren’t due to some folks arriving here in a boat. They are not to do with EU rules. Or ECJ. But these folk managed to convince half the population it was. I will start- there should be no live politician interviews on radio or TV. By law, all politician interviewed must be pre-recorded and ran alongside an independent fact checker of everything they say. Secondly, PMQS, the question must be answered and not waffled by the PM. If waffled and not answered, a punishment must apply. And don’t start me on House of Lords! |
|
New Tue 9 Nov 21 06:12
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Duncan
|
|
>> I will start- there should be no live politician interviews on radio or TV. By >> law, all politician interviewed must be pre-recorded and ran alongside an independent fact checker of >> everything they say. Secondly, PMQS, the question must be answered and not waffled by the >> PM. If waffled and not answered, a punishment must apply. Q. Which independant body will appoint the independant fact checkers? A. Nobody. No it will never happen/work. Q. Who will appoint the independant checkers of the PMQS questions and his/her answers? A. No. It will never happen/work. What we have after centuries of discussion and compromise is a camel. Not pretty, plenty of faults. It will occasionally spit in your eye, but it works - after a fashion. Perhaps the Swiss system. No Royal Family, no President. No wars! |
|
New Tue 9 Nov 21 18:50
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - BiggerBadderDave
|
|
"And don’t start me on House of Lords!" Blimey, you're not gonna burn that one down as well are you, Bobby? |
|
New Tue 9 Nov 21 08:07
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Genuine question; is it? I thought it was supposed to be as close to objective >> and unbiased as reasonably possible? The words hard time were perhaps ill chosen. What I meant was ensuring they don't have an easy time where they call the entire agenda. Hiding behind written answers or putting up a junior minister are cases in point. Johnson was hiding from accountability yesterday. Not just Labour saying that so did several on his own side. I wonder what JB would have had to say? |
|
New Tue 9 Nov 21 08:35
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Duncan
|
|
>> I wonder what JB would have had to say? >> Who he/she? |
|
New Tue 9 Nov 21 08:47
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> >> I wonder what JB would have had to say? >> >> >> >> Who he/she? John Bercow, there was a tangent between NoFM and I over the role of the Speaker. |
|
New Tue 9 Nov 21 08:49
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - smokie
|
| Joan Bakewell of course duhhhh |
|
New Tue 9 Nov 21 09:28
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - No FM2R
|
|
>>Johnson was hiding from accountability yesterday Absolutely he was. They all seem to know that dodging accountability gets ignored or soon forgotten, whereas showing up and getting a kicking does not. The natural check on that ought to be an outraged electorate. But they're not. Mostly they seem not all that bothered. Even Cummings couldn't get his claws in. Some of that is no doubt due to just being tired of s***. COVID has taken it out of people, they've had quite enough of politicians, and are happy to ignore the whole thing. At least for now. And some of it is die to the fact that we have become so used to the entire crowd bein a pile of [insert long and insulting description] that we don't particularly see one as any different to others. |
|
New Tue 9 Nov 21 12:11
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Terry
|
|
Boris deploys a now standard set of tactics to deal with criticism and attack. They have worked so consistently they are now an embedded behaviour. Eloquent nonsense (which he is very good at), assert the issue is trivial or misrepresented, has been dealt with, and finally ignores further challenges. Being goal oriented, stretching the truth (some call it lying) is second nature. There is no sense of humility, just the absolute certainty he is right. It is easy to be seduced by his oratory. The debate yesterday was the first time I have heard Kier Starmer speak as an effective leader of the opposition - his performance has otherwise been woeful. Encouraging the public to believe they are being democratically short-changed may have more effect than challenging the detail of particular incidents. Impending by-elections may reveal the extent of any decline in Tory support and provide the impetus for a change of leadership. Failures in (bits of) Brexit and Covid management can then be attributed to the then departed Boris, whilst the party celebrates the successes. |
|
New Tue 9 Nov 21 12:49
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - No FM2R
|
|
>>The debate yesterday was the first time I have heard Kier Starmer speak as an effective leader of the opposition - his performance has otherwise been woeful. He's not really the problem though, is he? He seems pretty smart, pretty decent and pretty well-intentioned to me. The problem lies behind him. The ridiculous crowds that Blair silenced and then kept silent. The shop stewards, the blind-socialist, the Corbyns and the rest of the ridiculous. Labour get all the votes of the Labour supporters and it's not enough to get them into power. They need to work out how to steal voters from elsewhere, and banging out the tired old s***e won't get it. Essentially Labour has to appeal to non-Labour voters and to do that it needs to stop being 1960s Labour. Blair got it, then they all forgot it again. |
|
New Tue 9 Nov 21 16:13
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Bobby
|
| And yet there are many that say Labour needs to get back to its roots and stop trying to be red Tories if it has any chance of progressing from where they are now? |
|
New Tue 9 Nov 21 17:03
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Zero
|
|
>> And yet there are many that say Labour needs to get back to its roots >> and stop trying to be red Tories if it has any chance of progressing from >> where they are now? Afraid the flower bed that the Labour party roots sprouted from is now barren. They need a new bed, but they haven't figured it out (Blair did and then he went and ruined it) |
|
New Tue 9 Nov 21 17:08
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - No FM2R
|
|
>> And yet there are many that say Labour needs to get back to its roots >> and stop trying to be red Tories if it has any chance of progressing from >> where they are now? Yes, and typically those are the old 60s Labour types who want to feel important and relevant and loved again. Not unlike the battle plaintiff cry of a died in the wool Shop Steward is mourns for the lost days of regular walk outs. |
|
New Tue 9 Nov 21 17:28
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Yes, and typically those are the old 60s Labour types who want to feel important >> and relevant and loved again. Not unlike the battle plaintiff cry of a died in >> the wool Shop Steward is mourns for the lost days of regular walk outs. As a pre pandemic attendee at CLP meetings my observation is that you're well off beam there. Quite a lot of the lefties are youngsters who think a wholeheartedly Socialist manifesto would rock Millennials and Gen Z and drag us over the line. It might do in a youthful London constituency but it won't win back Sunderland. |
|
New Tue 9 Nov 21 17:51
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - No FM2R
|
|
Really, using opinions from a self-selecting echo chamber as justification of a point of view about anything other than aforementioned echo chamber? Seems dodgy. |
|
New Tue 9 Nov 21 19:01
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Robin O'Reliant
|
|
I've said this before, but the very people labour need to attract are the people they have traditionally either ignored or treated with contempt. The shop workers and the self employed are the modern day working class, yet the left of the party behave as if the docks, mines and car factories were as numerous as they were in the i960s and pitch their rhetoric towards them. I doubt the Corbynistas could ever bring themselves to try and appeal to the self-employed though, they hate them with a passion. |
|
New Tue 9 Nov 21 18:54
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - PeterS
|
|
The Labour Party certainly has a higher membership than any other political party; indeed almost as high as all other parties put together. This isn’t reflected in support in the country however when it comes to general elections. So the left seem to have a greater ‘need’ to belong to a group that thinks like them for some reason. Even so they only have 430,000 members (Wikipedia). There are around 14 million in the ‘Millennial’ generation, and 12.5 million or so in generation Z. So I agree it’s unlikely that the Labour members that are in those cohorts are in any way representative of the general population in the same cohort when those that lean left seem to be twice as likely to belong to a political party in the first place. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_affiliation_in_the_United_Kingdom www.statista.com/statistics/528577/uk-population-by-generation/ www.statista.com/statistics/871492/political-party-membership-in-the-uk-by-age/ |
|
New Tue 9 Nov 21 19:05
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Robin O'Reliant
|
|
>> The Labour Party certainly has a higher membership than any other political party; indeed almost >> as high as all other parties put together. This isn’t reflected in support in the >> country however when it comes to general elections. So the left seem to have a >> greater ‘need’ to belong to a group that thinks like them for some reason. >> >> Rather like the Disc Jockey John Peel, who regularly topped the vote for best radio DJ despite playing music most people considered crap and having hardly any listeners. The mainstream has supporters, the oddball has fanatics. |
|
New Tue 9 Nov 21 19:09
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Manatee
|
| I can't remember where I read it but somebody wrote that it was a mistake to democratise the leadership elections in both main parties. The problem being that the members don't vote the same way as the electorate would, and it is much more likely that 'extremist' leaders will be chosen. Labour voters and Labour members are not the same |
|
New Tue 9 Nov 21 21:20
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - No FM2R
|
|
>> I can't remember where I read it but somebody wrote that it was a mistake >> to democratise the leadership elections in both main parties. The problem being that the members >> don't vote the same way as the electorate would, and it is much more likely >> that 'extremist' leaders will be chosen. Labour voters and Labour members are not the same Entirely sensible. For a Labour party to get Labour voters, a Conservative to get Conservative voters and MRLP to get MRLP voters is not difficult To get into power though you have to work out how to get other party's voters. What's the point in pursuing "grass roots", "traditional", "pick your favourite buzz phrase" voters? They already vote for you. The trick is to get the ones who do not, without losing the ones who do. Was Blair the last Labour politician to understand that? Was Blair in fact the last Labour politician with a brain? (Probably not, Starmer seems smart, but there's not many of them) An article I posted some time ago was based upon the thinking that the biggest barrier preventing Labour getting into power si that they were Labour. And large amount of potentially left leaning voters in the UK are not impressed by Labour, mostly because of it's historical and outdated position. And the fanatical dinosaurs it drags everywhere. The Conservative party simply do not care what you want, as long as you haven't got the votes to out vote them. That's kind of annoying, means that I don't like them very much, and can only put up with them on the decreasingly rare instance where I agree with them. The Labour party on the other hand, firmly believes that it *knows* what everybody wants, or at least would want if they were 'enlightened' and that utterly psses me off. If it wasn't for my belief in the Welfare State and the common good, and the fact that any one party system is s***, never mind a one party system consisting of only the Conservatives, then I would happily wipe them from my mind. Labour working out it needs to stop being so precious and sanctimonious is about as likely as the Conservatives stopping being self-motivated and selfish. If The Liberals are supposed to be some kind of balance between the two you'd think this would be their time, but rather than being all things to all men they have focussed on being f.all use to anyone. |
|
New Wed 10 Nov 21 00:41
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Terry
|
|
It is inevitable that both main parties have generally centrist policies - extreme right or left positions alienate more voters than they attract. Both are constrained in power by realities - exchange rates, interest rates, unemployment, inflation, growth aspirations etc etc. Voters may not be happy with all policies of their chosen party, but will be content that most of their views are represented. Blair realised this and may easily have been a moderate Tory PM - the left of his party supported him because he carried the Labour badge, not because of the policies adopted. Corbyn sat towards the extreme left and was never likely to be PM. Policies barely differentiate the parties - so what does: - partly the capacity to communicate and persuade - a Boris strength even though the reality lacks some substance. - partly a perceived philosophical difference - a tendency towards small government, lower taxes, markets vs legislative control, high tax, more public services. Differences are now somewhat illusory - Tories adopting much of the traditional Labour agenda - more taxes, more NHS, more education, levelling up (?), public infrastructure investment. Labour need to find a new USP - or Boris to royally foul things up (rather more likely). Libdems historically sought to be the central party of reasonable social policy and fiscal good sense. Why vote for a party whose policies are little different to the two larger ones but with no prospect of governent. They messed up their one big chance in 2010. |
|
New Wed 10 Nov 21 07:11
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Manatee
|
|
>> >> - partly a perceived philosophical difference - a tendency towards small government, lower taxes, markets >> vs legislative control, high tax, more public services. >> >> Differences are now somewhat illusory - Tories adopting much of the traditional Labour agenda These perceptions persist and are very hard to change. I once worked for a retailer that had a deservedly poor reputation for service. The company invested a lot in changing that and achieved a very measurable improvement. When asked to rate their visit, customers would give a high rating. When the same pool of customers were asked about the level of service they expected from that retailer, many rated it rock bottom. Some of them were asked in 'focus groups' why they did this even though the majority of interactions were rated good or better. Basically they thought they had just been lucky, and their expectations hadn't changed very much. The Conservatives do not demonstrate fiscal competence any more than Labour does, yet it is Labour that people think will destroy the economy. Similarly the very word "socialism" is like a red rag to a Daily Mail reader. I've said this before, but one of my neighbours told me he would never vote for Labour because people like Jeremy Corbyn are socialists. When I asked what was wrong with that he said the Nazis were socialists. So I asked him which bits of socialism he didn't like - was it state pensions, the NHS, or social housing? I think that's where we left it. |
|
New Wed 10 Nov 21 12:28
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Terry
|
|
Reputations remain long after reality changes - for a car orientated forum: - Mercedes Benz, a byword for quality engineering, have been no better than average since ~2000 - Land Rover still bought on the back of the tonka toy go anywhere image despite unrelaibility - Hyundai and Kia still cheap far east imports despite equalling European quality and design - Rolls Royce are the epitome of classic British quality but actually German owned - etc etc |
|
New Wed 10 Nov 21 12:46
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - No FM2R
|
|
>>Similarly the very word "socialism" is like a red rag to a Daily Mail reader. It usually is to me and I don't read the Daily Mail. Lowest common denominator, collective ownership, loss of individual incentive, the embrace of mediocrity, overbearing Government, loss of market forces, loss of competition, etc. etc. etc. No thanks. I think it gets confused with the need for central welfare provision. Health care, a benefits system, State Pension system, social housing etc. etc. are, in my mind, vital. We just don't need to lump socialism in with it. Unnecessary, counter productive and an all round bad thing. Socialism is just a different bunch of people seeking control. Animal Farm is not really a representation of Socialism, but it is a representation of what commonly happens, on even a small scale. |
|
New Wed 10 Nov 21 15:33
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Kevin
|
|
I read quite an amusing suggestion a few days ago. I won't mention the source or there'll be fireworks. Paraphrased. MPs should be made to wear jackets embroidered with the logos of their sponsors and donors. Lobbyists should be made to wear cowbells. |
|
New Wed 10 Nov 21 15:53
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - No FM2R
|
|
I think Ministers should be forced to produce an official report of their activities each year; Activity report N hours in Constituency N hours in Westminster on Parliamentary business N hours on private clients / non-Govt. work Financial Report $x collected in Government salary $x claimed in legitimate Government expenses $x other benefits received from Government Confirmation that copy of tax return submitted to house review committee List of private clients, revenue sources, contracts including topics and other paid work. Membership reports Lists of clubs, committees and SIGs. And any who don't want to do it should feel free to quit. |
|
New Thu 11 Nov 21 07:09
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - sooty123
|
|
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dressing-down-for-mps-who-got-drunk-on-flight-to-visit-troops-xzkf98fmr www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59243206 Looks a Labour MP got a bit too refreshed with a couple of SNP. Last edited by: sooty123 on Thu 11 Nov 21 at 07:10
|
|
New Thu 11 Nov 21 08:46
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Kevin
|
|
Good experience and the perfect location to give them an "insight into military life". Must have been terrifying on the front line in Gib. Good for the squaddies to see the sacrifices that our politicians have to make on a daily basis too. |
|
New Thu 11 Nov 21 08:51
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Bromptonaut
|
|
Current reports identify the SNP members of the delegation but not the (female) Labour member who was reportedly so pickled she had to be helped of the plane and to her hotel. Are bets being taken on how long it is before we have a name? |
|
New Thu 11 Nov 21 08:55
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - sooty123
|
| There's a name been put online as soon as the story broke, don't remember the name. It's not a well known MP. |
|
New Thu 11 Nov 21 09:23
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Kevin
|
|
Hotel? They weren't 'bonding' in the barracks? |
|
New Thu 11 Nov 21 09:46
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Falkirk Bairn
|
|
Charlotte Nichols, a Labour MP, and the SNP MPs David Linden and Drew Hendry were said to have been drinking before and during the British Airways flight from Heathrow to Gibraltar on Tuesday. The SNP MPs agreed they had had a drink, but claimed they were not drunk. Charlotte got off the plane but needed a chair to get out of the airport. Went to a hotel and left the next day not having taken part in anything other than a drinking session before & on the plane! |
|
New Thu 11 Nov 21 09:50
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Charlotte Nichols, a Labour MP Member for Warrington North (edit originally placed her as Romford): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_Nichols Another of the 2019 intake. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 11 Nov 21 at 09:54
|
|
New Thu 11 Nov 21 10:09
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - sooty123
|
|
>> Charlotte Nichols, a Labour MP, and the SNP MPs David Linden and Drew Hendry were >> said to have been drinking before and during the British Airways flight from Heathrow to >> Gibraltar on Tuesday. >> >> The SNP MPs agreed they had had a drink, but claimed they were not drunk. >> >> Charlotte got off the plane but needed a chair to get out of the airport. Sounds like a right lightweight, shouldn't do big boy drinking if you can't keep the pace. I wonder if she'll try the old, it's a medical condition/medication I'm on. >> Went to a hotel and left the next day not having taken part in anything >> other than a drinking session before & on the plane! >> I know a couple of people that happened to after having a few refreshments, less than 24 in country and ended up being whisked back to the UK. |
|
New Thu 11 Nov 21 13:21
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> I wonder if she'll try the old, it's a medical condition/medication I'm on. And Bingo: www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/11/three-mps-accused-of-drunken-conduct-on-armed-forces-gibraltar-trip She is understood to be on medication that may affect her reaction to alcohol. |
|
New Fri 12 Nov 21 12:46
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - sooty123
|
|
>> >> I wonder if she'll try the old, it's a medical condition/medication I'm on. >> >> And Bingo: >> >> www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/11/three-mps-accused-of-drunken-conduct-on-armed-forces-gibraltar-trip >> >> She is understood to be on medication that may affect her reaction to alcohol. >> My post seems to have vanished, I'll see if this one does as well. |
|
New Fri 12 Nov 21 14:29
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> My post seems to have vanished, I'll see if this one does as well. I can still see your post at 10:09 yesterday: www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=t&t=29430&m=638110 My first thought when this came up was that the press had got the story from a squaddie or maybe somebody at Gib airport. It seems in fact to have arisen from a public statement from Ben Wallace, the SoS for Defence, demanding an apology. Whilst, assuming the allegation is true, an apology is due I'm inclined to see Wallace's actions in context of current news as along the lines of whacking a dead cat on the table... |
|
New Fri 12 Nov 21 14:43
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - sooty123
|
|
>> >> My post seems to have vanished, I'll see if this one does as well. >> >> >> I can still see your post at 10:09 yesterday: >> >> www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=t&t=29430&m=638110 >> No it was a reply to your post that started 'bingo' that went missing. |
|
New Fri 12 Nov 21 15:18
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - Kevin
|
|
Sooty, I'm sure you didn't post anything along the lines of You'd think they would come up with something a bit more original. Nope, didn't see that at all. |
|
New Fri 12 Nov 21 16:08
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - sooty123
|
| Posts disappear from time to time on here, just one of those things. |
|
New Fri 12 Nov 21 16:11
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - No FM2R
|
|
>> Posts disappear from time to time on here, just one of those things. There's no logic to it, I've always suspected a faulty maintenance process of one type or another which loses any posts made in the period that it is running. |
|
New Fri 12 Nov 21 20:02
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - VxFan
|
|
>> My post seems to have vanished, I'll see if this one does as well. It's a pity some of the quoted message you're replying to doesn't as well, instead of it all appearing. Perhaps we should have something like a pop up message reminding people not to quote everything. |
|
New Thu 11 Nov 21 10:11
Labour's turn for the gutter.... - sooty123
|
|
>> Good experience and the perfect location to give them an "insight into military life". Must >> have been terrifying on the front line in Gib. >> > Dunno DTC guardroom can be a bit rough in the small hours especially if breakfast club is on. |
|
New Fri 12 Nov 21 11:42
Rats in a sack. - Kevin
|
|
No, not our absent forum contributor; our MP's 'holier than thou' quest. They've only got themselves to blame haven't they. While the two main parties have been tearing lumps off each other this week about drunken antics on planes and the use of official offices for non-govt. business, the folks at the right-leaning Guido Fawkes website have published photos that Labour MPs posted to social media holding morale boosting calls to election candidates. This is apparently a bigger no-no than using your office for private business because it means that they are effectively using taxayer funds for party-political purposes. Their use of the facilities was also not declared as election expenses. Even worse is that George Galloway has now spotted the clips and has applied for the Batley & Spen result to be made void. They just don't know when to keep their mouths shut do they? |
|
New Fri 12 Nov 21 11:56
Rats in a sack. - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> No, not our absent forum contributor; our MP's 'holier than thou' quest. >> >> They've only got themselves to blame haven't they. >> >> While the two main parties have been tearing lumps off each other this week about >> drunken antics on planes and the use of official offices for non-govt. business, the folks >> at the right-leaning Guido Fawkes website have published photos that Labour MPs posted to social >> media holding morale boosting calls to election candidates. >> This is apparently a bigger no-no than using your office for private business because it >> means that they are effectively using taxayer funds for party-political purposes. Their use of the >> facilities was also not declared as election expenses. Do you have a link? Guido is, as you say, right leaning and this is probably no more than mischief making. If the calls made were incoming, on a personal mobile, or even at national rates on their officially provided desk phones then surely there's a point at which a 'de minimis' rule applies. How might the expense be declared? I cannot get too excited about Cox using his office for a Zoom meeting for the same reason. Use of his office/commons letterhead was the bit Paterson admitted; almost as though a plea bargain. Albeit verging in 'Whatboutery' I'd be amazed if MPs of all other parties are not guilty of the same thing. |
|
New Fri 12 Nov 21 12:06
Rats in a sack. - Kevin
|
|
>Do you have a link? Second article down on order-order.com |
|
New Fri 12 Nov 21 12:48
Rats in a sack. - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Second article down on order-order.com Keeps moving around but there's a link here: order-order.com/2021/11/11/more-labour-mps-caught-red-handed-phone-banking-from-parliament/ As a party member I was asked to volunteer for this phone banking stuff. Didn't pursue it but so far as a I recall one logged into a system and either made, or were fed, calls. Canvassing by another name. Would my time/broadband be an election expense? Whilst there are rules about 'donating' office space that seems intended to capture provision of campaign offices rather than incidental use. I'd be surprised if this goes anywhere not least because it's a can of worms that no party wants opened. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 12 Nov 21 at 12:50
|
|
New Fri 12 Nov 21 14:13
Rats in a sack. - Kevin
|
|
>I'd be surprised if this goes anywhere not least because it's a can of worms that no party wants opened. Which was exactly my point but I don't think that Galloway is the type to let it quietly fade away. |
|
New Fri 12 Nov 21 14:18
Rats in a sack. - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Which was exactly my point but I don't think that Galloway is the type to >> let it quietly fade away. So far as I can see Galloway's threat as usual (he's incredibly litigious) is to go to court. I guess the challenge will be to the Returning Officer who might reasonably respond in robust terms that Galloway's action is without merit, has no chance of success and is an abuse of process. Hopefully claim dismissed with Claimant to pay Defendant's costs. |
|
New Fri 12 Nov 21 14:41
Rats in a sack. - Terry
|
|
We are in danger of gross sanctimony judging trivial non-compliance with a framework rightly intended to promote integrity, honesty, avoid conflicts of interest etc etc. Irrespective of political party - MPs are intelligent (even if we disagree) capable individuals who in other employment would likely fill roles in professional, middle and senior management. They are paid as such - salaries approximate to mid-ranking doctors, accountants, lawyers, directors etc. It provides a comfortable but for from premium standard of living. Criticism is mostly driven by envy from those with far less ability (IMHO) Many have extensive outside interests developed before taking office. Parliament would be much poorer if it only allowed to stand those who had never done or achieved anything! I expect them to use the facilities provided for incidental personal use. This may include an occassional meeting, use of office facilities, take the "company car" to a private event etc etc. This is completely different to an abuse of office - using their position as an elected representative to promote personal or others interests, or for personal financial gain. |
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
