Off Topic EU deabte. Which way are you voting ?

[Fez]

If you wish? So you fancy a straightener then?

I'm have all of those attributes btw you bile filled no mark

Have another pop at 4.25 am tomorrow love, just before you set off on your delivery round.

You come across as such a bitter and twisted loser, a bile filled man, who has no engagement with the economy and doesn't care it if bombs as a result of that reality. I'd wager you'd quite like to see it flounder, so that people who have the things that you don't have, but hanker after, get a dousing. It'd make you feel better about your ****tly little life I'm sure.

What are on about? You really are a thick ****.

 

[Treble]

Could those discrete policies be better informed if politicians could get their electorates views into the process in some way when they're being formed?

Don't they do some sort of polling with focus groups (I forget the terminology) but Blair's government were renowned for it. Get a group of people and sound them out on future policies. I remember at the time there seemed something distinctly fake about it at the time, as if they were trying to find a way to spin new policy?

In theory though I think it's a good idea... until you ask the electorate's view on capital punishment lol

 

[Fez]

I can't be bothered tbh simply because it serves me no purpose. As for the bit in bold, it's becoming mindnumbing to be honest. I come on here just to see if we've moved forward at all. Part of the problem is it's such a close half and half split. Whichever way the vote had gone, the fact that there was always going to be roughly 49% of the population against the outcome, it was never going to just move on.

I don't seek to prolong it, but you won't find one on here, so sensible not to bother trying.

 

[DMD]

TBH I disagree, IMO when your jobs are under threat, your social programmes are under threat, your own country (think particularly Wales but could extend to the UK), even the very existence of the UK is under threat then the worst thing possible to do is lie down and accept it. Especially when you've been lied to consistently (The EU costs £350m - LIE, we'll give this to the NHS - LIE, Wales (and Cornwall) won't lose a penny - LIE, the EU is undemocratic - LIE).

Then you've got the terrifying prospect of Theresa 'I want to be Milk Snatcher Thatcher' May writing a new Bill of Rights for us and enacting the Snoopers Charter enabling her to collect date on every single thing we do online anytime anywhere for any reason!

I think the emphasis on some of the detail in the statements is what people hang on to too much. I didn't vote because of any of that anyway, in truth I barely noticed them and certainly wouldn't have thought of them as truths, or really even expected to be taken as truths. In the same way, I didn't listen to the claims from the other side either. I took them as general aspirations, for the want of a description, and we get to vote people out if we don't feel they're at least working in the spirit of such things. It's partly why I feel we need a strong opposition.

The EU has told far bigger lies, and been far less accountable anyway.

 

[Smirnoffpriest]

Thank you for taken time out and posting such an informative post. It's helped clear a few things in my mind.

Without prejudging the outcome, I guess the publication of the report will only shift the angle of attack, rather than end the battle, so how do you see it playing out?

One of two ways - No 1. Corbyn hangs tough/toughs it out (pick your phrase) then he can changes Labour 'law' (or is policy a better word?) and allows the CLP (I had to check what this means it's 'Constituency Labour Party') can deselect an MP if they are not doing what the electorate want - makes the MPs accountable and gives power back to the people. Essentially the CLP are the party members in any local area, so if you don't like what an MP is doing you can just pay your money, sign up and vote him/her out. He'd have a clean out of the self-serving, back stabbing Blairites, but also offer a conciliatory olive branch to those who wish to stay and serve their constituents.

No 2. Corbyn resigns, the Labour party either lose or damage the backing of the unions (hugely damaging since Cameron changed the way parties can get funded to disadvantage the Labour party). Most Corbyn supporters leave the party, support for Labour plummets, support for the Greens, Lib Dems and even UKIP increases, the Tory's get handed the next election as some stoolie like Angela Eagle gets put up for election to little support. The Grassroots dies, the key points of the Chilcott report get hidden and forgotten about by the new leader, the Tories and by the mainstream media - in much the same way as with the Leveson report into press conduct.

Either way the party may split in a way similar to the late 80s/early 90s - but I was much too young to remember that, so I don't know much about it. But it depends on how the Blairites act.

If he stays in power the press will continue to slate Corbyn but his popularity will continue to rise...

 

[petersaxton]

Really? Would you have felt the same if there hadn't been a referendum. I think that's a bit rich tbh. You may take that as an attempt to wind you up but it's not. It's easy to make these remarks when government is on your side. You said earlier that politicians should seek the opinion of the electorate so you're also contradicting yourself a bit here.

When did I say that?

 

[Smirnoffpriest]

I think the emphasis on some of the detail in the statements is what people hang on to too much. I didn't vote because of any of that anyway, in truth I barely noticed them and certainly wouldn't have thought of them as truths, or really even expected to be taken as truths. In the same way, I didn't listen to the claims from the other side either. I took them as general aspirations, for the want of a description, and we get to vote people out if we don't feel they're at least working in the spirit of such things. It's partly why I feel we need a strong opposition.

The EU has told far bigger lies, and been far less accountable anyway.

My point is not whether you believed them or not. My point is that Wales was reliant on EU funding, we desperately needed it, now instead because of the Brexit we will lose billions of pounds of EU funding and instead of it getting replaced we will have further cuts and higher taxes. I don't really care who believes what, I just care that thousands of jobs (and many companies I imagine) will go in Wales, including possibly my own.

The EU wasn't at all involved in the referendum so how can they have told lies?

 

[Smirnoffpriest]

Thank you for taken time out and posting such an informative post. It's helped clear a few things in my mind.

Without prejudging the outcome, I guess the publication of the report will only shift the angle of attack, rather than end the battle, so how do you see it playing out?

I should have added I agree with your last sentence. Unless he steps down the attacks will definitely continue.

 

[Treble]

Basically there's a coup started by a PR company called Portland House - one of the Directors is Alistair Campbell, it's linked to Tony Blair, has a ex-Sky man as another Director, they organised this coup 6 months ago regardless of the referendum result. They say that it is Corbyn's fault that only 63% of the Labour party voted to remain (1% less than the strongly Remain SNP party), but what it is really about is an orchestrated attempt to force him to resign before the Chilcott Report is released next week in which Corbyn has already said he will demand charges for anyone found guilty, including Blair. Blair doesn't want the leader of the Labour Party in the dispatch box demanding his head.

The problem comes that the PLP (Labour Parliamentary Labour Party - essentially the MPs) are so out of touch with the public and with what party members want that they tried putting different shades of Blairites up for nomination - Milliband, Cooper, Kendall, Burnham. The result was the Labour Party hemoragging votes and membership numbers hugely since 1997, to a new low in 2010. Little interest was paid in the new leadership campaign until Corbyn was put forward. When they realised that Corbyn might get on the ticket and how much public appeal he had, the PLP panicked and tried to stop his name being put on the ticket, then they tried changing the rules. After that failed they started a sustained campaign of personal and professional attacks in a smear campaign - totally forgetting about the Tory's - at the same time as Abstaining from voting against the Welfare Bill.

Corbyn won with the biggest landslide of any leader of any party EVER (a quarter of million people voted for him!) he won 60% of the vote in a 4 horse race! In spite of the mud slinging, smear campaigns, the lies. People saw through them and his honesty and the fact he actually had policies that made sense, worked for working class people and answered problems important to them (rather than saying 'I'm a Woman' like Cooper) had huge appeal for disaffected people beaten down by years of ideological austerity.

Now at a time when he has won a party leadership, increased party membership, won bi-elections and did better (or as good as - soz can't be arsed to check) as Milliband at his height in the local elections. But the claim he is unelectable is still made and any of the hundreds of thousands that support him (as opposed to the few thousand that support the other Labour candidates) are dismissed as either far-left 'loonie-lefties' who couldn't possibly represent 'normal' people, or as needing a heart transplant, or even worse as Tory's pretending to be supporters to keep Corbyn in power!

As such they say we need to ditch 'unelectable' hugely popular and democratically elected Corbyn, disregard the will of the party members, believe a 177 MPs and a PR company (funded by HSBC funded) campaign, forget about the 350k plus members he has attracted to the party. Ignore the many warnings from members that they will defect if Corbyn is axed.

And instead place a more right wing member in charge who is more likely to win back some of the 25% of the voters who voted Tory. While at the same time further disaffecting the 35% who didn't vote. Not forgetting the old Charles Kennedy period Lib Dem supporters who defected after Nick Clegg's coalition with the Tory's, or UKIP supporters - who now that they have achieved their aim of getting out of Europe may actually want to achieve some other aims the parties supporters have polled strongly in - namely re-nationalisation, protecting the NHS and other policies that Corbyn has polled strongest among their voters in.

That's a great post simply because I didn't know a lot of it. I was one of those who supported his appointment. The reason I've changed my opinion of him is simply because he lacked conviction over the referendum. Even though I voted Remain, I would have had more respect for him if he'd gone with his conscience and campaigned for the Brexiteers. And I'll go even further and say he'd still have had my support if he had. Because I would have known that 1) He would have had the vast majority of the Labour supporting UK population backing him, and 2) He would have fought equally hard on all the other issues traditional Labour voters hold so dear. What's he going to do the next time he comes across a difficult issue that compromises his personal and political beliefs???

 

[petersaxton]

TBH I disagree, IMO when your jobs are under threat, your social programmes are under threat, your own country (think particularly Wales but could extend to the UK), even the very existence of the UK is under threat then the worst thing possible to do is lie down and accept it. Especially when you've been lied to consistently (The EU costs £350m - LIE, we'll give this to the NHS - LIE, Wales (and Cornwall) won't lose a penny - LIE, the EU is undemocratic - LIE).

Then you've got the terrifying prospect of Theresa 'I want to be Milk Snatcher Thatcher' May writing a new Bill of Rights for us and enacting the Snoopers Charter enabling her to collect date on every single thing we do online anytime anywhere for any reason!

You knew that the Leave campaign was a non-Government and non-party affiliated organisation. How could they realistically say what the government is going to do in two or three years time? They may have said more than they should but the realistic implication was clear - the money that we give to the EU would be available to spend how this country decides. The Remain side said there would be a "punishment" budget if the Leave side won. That isn't happening either. It's up to government to get on with things as soon as a new Prime Minister is elected.

 

[DMD]

One of two ways - No 1. Corbyn hangs tough/toughs it out (pick your phrase) then he can changes Labour 'law' (or is policy a better word?) and allows the CLP (I had to check what this means it's 'Constituency Labour Party') can deselect an MP if they are not doing what the electorate want - makes the MPs accountable and gives power back to the people. Essentially the CLP are the party members in any local area, so if you don't like what an MP is doing you can just pay your money, sign up and vote him/her out. He'd have a clean out of the self-serving, back stabbing Blairites, but also offer a conciliatory olive branch to those who wish to stay and serve their constituents.

No 2. Corbyn resigns, the Labour party either lose or damage the backing of the unions (hugely damaging since Cameron changed the way parties can get funded to disadvantage the Labour party). Most Corbyn supporters leave the party, support for Labour plummets, support for the Greens, Lib Dems and even UKIP increases, the Tory's get handed the next election as some stoolie like Angela Eagle gets put up for election to little support. The Grassroots dies, the key points of the Chilcott report get hidden and forgotten about by the new leader, the Tories and by the mainstream media - in much the same way as with the Leveson report into press conduct.

Either way the party may split in a way similar to the late 80s/early 90s - but I was much too young to remember that, so I don't know much about it. But it depends on how the Blairites act.

If he stays in power the press will continue to slate Corbyn but his popularity will continue to rise...

Thanks again. I'm learning a lot from your replies and it's appreciated.

I have a bias, in that I want to see Blair held to account, so would favour option one for that alone, if it reigns in Campbell at the same time, that's a bonus. I'm possibly being greedy, but is their any chance you could make the scenario create misery for Dianne Abbot too?

 

[petersaxton]

I think the emphasis on some of the detail in the statements is what people hang on to too much. I didn't vote because of any of that anyway, in truth I barely noticed them and certainly wouldn't have thought of them as truths, or really even expected to be taken as truths. In the same way, I didn't listen to the claims from the other side either. I took them as general aspirations, for the want of a description, and we get to vote people out if we don't feel they're at least working in the spirit of such things. It's partly why I feel we need a strong opposition.

The EU has told far bigger lies, and been far less accountable anyway.

Sensible people just made a judgement on what was important to them and not on what somebody said would happen.

 

[DMD]

My point is not whether you believed them or not. My point is that Wales was reliant on EU funding, we desperately needed it, now instead because of the Brexit we will lose billions of pounds of EU funding and instead of it getting replaced we will have further cuts and higher taxes. I don't really care who believes what, I just care that thousands of jobs (and many companies I imagine) will go in Wales, including possibly my own.

The EU wasn't at all involved in the referendum so how can they have told lies?

The referendum was about the EU, so there actions or inaction over the years were a paramount part of the election. There are plenty of jobs lost and communities disrupted due to the actions of the unaccountables. Had we remained, I see nothing that says ir wouldn't have got worse, particularly as more countries join, and bigger ones leave..

 

[Smirnoffpriest]

That's a great post simply because I didn't know a lot of it. I was one of those who supported his appointment. The reason I've changed my opinion of him is simply because he lacked conviction over the referendum. Even though I voted Remain, I would have had more respect for him if he'd gone with his conscience and campaigned for the Brexiteers. And I'll go even further and say he'd still have had my support if he had. Because I would have known that 1) He would have had the vast majority of the Labour supporting UK population backing him, and 2) He would have fought equally hard on all the other issues traditional Labour voters hold so dear. What's he going to do the next time he comes across a difficult issue that compromises his personal and political beliefs???

I disagree - I honestly belief he did what he thought was right, while he has reservations about the EU's swing towards neo-liberal policies he believes we are still better and safer within it and can campaign, change and improve it from within. He believes our workers rights, our human rights and our environment can be better protected with the EU's Social Charter than it can by Theresa May's Bill of Rights and that there is great appetite to change the neo-liberal focus of the EU and we can do this from the inside - it is dangerous to leave ourselves at the mercy of this government's neo-liberal on steroids policies with no protection and no guarantee of on election for 4 years.

But he did campaign and a high number of Labour supporters wanted to Remain and did vote to Remain - trying to convince them to vote Out, especially when he knew that the poorest areas - the ones he's trying hardest to protect, so relied on EU funds, would have been political suicide.

 

[Treble]

When did I say that?

I stand corrected, I had to go check. I think I took it as an implication of you saying "The people who want to be leaders should put forward their main policies and see what support they get" but that's not quite the same thing, so I take that back.

But I still stand by the bit I posted above the sentence you highlighted in bold. It's easy to say, let the government get on with governing, when you agree with them. But if you don't agree you should shout, compplain, heckle and basically hold them to account.

 

[petersaxton]

I disagree - I honestly belief he did what he thought was right, while he has reservations about the EU's swing towards neo-liberal policies he believes we are still better and safer within it and can campaign, change and improve it from within. He believes our workers rights, our human rights and our environment can be better protected with the EU's Social Charter than it can by Theresa May's Bill of Rights and that there is great appetite to change the neo-liberal focus of the EU and we can do this from the inside - it is dangerous to leave ourselves at the mercy of this government's neo-liberal on steroids policies with no protection and no guarantee of on election for 4 years.

But he did campaign and a high number of Labour supporters wanted to Remain and did vote to Remain - trying to convince them to vote Out, especially when he knew that the poorest areas - the ones he's trying hardest to protect, so relied on EU funds, would have been political suicide.

In the 1975 referendum I voted for remaining in the EEC. I felt that a United States of Europe was a great idea but I've come to realise there's very little democracy in the EU and by the way it's run they will consistently make bad decisions. The sooner we get out the better.

 

[Tobes]

What are on about? You really are a thick ****.

No answer but 'thick ****' obviously close to the bone then, you archetypal loser.

 

[Smirnoffpriest]

In the 1975 referendum I voted for remaining in the EEC. I felt that a United States of Europe was a great idea but I've come to realise there's very little democracy in the EU and by the way it's run they will consistently make bad decisions. The sooner we get out the better.

But it's more democractic than the UK so why remain the UK?

 

[petersaxton]

I stand corrected, I had to go check. I think I took it as an implication of you saying "The people who want to be leaders should put forward their main policies and see what support they get" but that's not quite the same thing, so I take that back.

But I still stand by the bit I posted above the sentence you highlighted in bold. It's easy to say, let the government get on with governing, when you agree with them. But if you don't agree you should shout, compplain, heckle and basically hold them to account.

I am more into the voting route. Do you think that, if a decision is taken by democratic means, if you disagree with it you should then try to get it changed by non-democratic means?

 

[Tobes]

In the 1975 referendum I voted for remaining in the EEC. I felt that a United States of Europe was a great idea but I've come to realise there's very little democracy in the EU and by the way it's run they will consistently make bad decisions. The sooner we get out the better.

The 75 referendum was about nothing more than remaining part of the common market, it was **** all to do with a United States of Europe.

You're a total and complete ****ing hypocrite