The EU Referendum - Thursday 23 June (with voting poll)

by Nico the gman Thu 30 Jun 2016, 10:14 pm

First topic message reminder :

Munchkin wrote:
Nico the gman wrote:Whether people like it or not the country voted to leave the EU and I don't think there's a cat in hells chance of a 2nd Referendum, those who did fail to vote and wanted to remain have in my opinion no argument.

I don't think a 2nd referendum will happen. I do think a 2nd referendum would vote Remain, even if the exact same voters come out.

Quite possibly.

by Guest Mon 04 Jul 2016, 1:29 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
Pr4wn wrote:"Jews were "no more responsible" for Israel's actions than Muslims were for "those various self-styled Islamic states".

Sorry but what exactly is wrong with this?

Nothing if you're an anti-Semite, everything if you're a rational human being.
Nonsense. That quote, above, can't portray the nuance of how it was said. You choose to read between the lines and take it to mean it's anti-Semitic. It could just as easily be (and, I suggest, is much more likely to have been meant) taken as is written. In other words, 'Jews', as a wider group, aren't responsible for Israel's idiotic behaviour any more than 'Muslims' as a wider group are responsible for Daesh and their idiotic behaviour. I'm not sure I see a problem with the latter interpretation. Do you have special inside knowledge as to Corbyn's mindset?

No, I have no inside information on the mind of Corbyn, and I don't need to have. There's plenty of information out there if you bothered you backside to look for it, although I have provided plenty on this thread, which you have either ignored or somehow missed.

Emily Thornberry , a Corbyn supporter (Thornberry has defended Corbyn against those labour MP's calling for his resignation), will know the mindset of Corbyn, and it was Emily Thornberry who contacted the Ambassador for Israel and apologised for the offence Corbyns remark may have caused. Do you think she was trying to read more from the comment than was actually meant? Obviously not.

It isn't a reading between the lines either. It's there in black in white.

by SecretFly Mon 04 Jul 2016, 1:48 pm

I heard it mentioned in print a few days ago that Rachel Johnson likened Gove to a 'suicide bomber'.

Does that mean she thinks he's dangerous to be let out on the streets of the UK or is it just a colourful way of calling him a backstabbing basterde?

Language must be allowed to be language. Corbyn isn't alone in thinking Israel policies are ripe for criticism. Isn't it interesting too that another Nation also demands constant apologies for 'offence' caused to it when world leaders, driven by the wishes of their own populations, are tasked with bringing up China's human rights records too.

"Don't offend us by talking about Tibet. Doing so will mean no Chinese investment." An effective method of ending debate and criticism.

Israel is a Nation not a Religion. When you criticise its policies you are not insulting Jews you are criticising a Nation's policies.

by **superflyweight** Mon 04 Jul 2016, 2:02 pm

Corbyn claims that he ambitions to be a statesman - although I don't think he actually does and I don't think the current labour regime has any interest in actually governing.

The government of Israel's policies are deserving of criticism and to criticise them is not by itself anti-Semitic. However, as a prospective statesman, Corbyn must realise he can't use the kind of language he did and essentially compare the Israeli government with ISIS. Criticise the policies by all means, but at least do so with some semblance of an understanding of how international diplomacy works.

He's either:
(a) naïve
(b) stupid
(c) destructive
(d) all of the above

My best guess is that he is (d).

by Guest Mon 04 Jul 2016, 2:24 pm

SecretFly wrote:I heard it mentioned in print a few days ago that Rachel Johnson likened Gove to a 'suicide bomber'.

Does that mean she thinks he's dangerous to be let out on the streets of the UK or is it just a colourful way of calling him a backstabbing basterde?

Language must be allowed to be language. Corbyn isn't alone in thinking Israel policies are ripe for criticism. Isn't it interesting too that another Nation also demands constant apologies for 'offence' caused to it when world leaders, driven by the wishes of their own populations, are tasked with bringing up China's human rights records too.

"Don't offend us by talking about Tibet. Doing so will mean no Chinese investment." An effective method of ending debate and criticism.

Israel is a Nation not a Religion. When you criticise its policies you are not insulting Jews you are criticising a Nation's policies.

Nobody is saying you shouldn't criticise Israels policies. Israel's policies and actions should be as open to criticism as any other country, such as the the USA/UK foreign policy that has resulted in so much Middle East turmoil. Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan, to name but a few. There should also be much criticism of the actions of Russia annexing the Crimea, and the brutal dictatorship of Assad but, relative to the criticism of Israel, little is said about Western actions, the land theft by Russia or the murder of Syrians by their own leader.

Anti-Semitism within the Labour Party is a fact Fly. I agree in principal on freedom of speech, but not that it should extend to anti-Semitism or any form of racial abuse. The Labour Party does have an issue with an anti-Semitic element within its ranks, from grassroots to the very top.
Corbyn understood full well the significance of his remarks, as did his own Party members, including Thornberry who is a Corbyn supporter. She understood the comment Fly, you don't.

You comparing Rachel Johnstons comment to Corbyns doesn't work, Fly. What if Johnston had applied the same comment to a Muslim? Then it would be seen to be racist, and rightly so, and Johnston should be sacked.

From reading your comments throughout the debate, I suspect you're something of a Corbyn supporter. Fine, if true, but don't let it cloud your own judgement. Corbyn is someone who is happy to criticise Israel, and yet call Hezbollah and Hamas his friends. He is someone who is happy to share a platform with those who call for the destruction of Israel. He is a leader that will only take action against anti-Semites within his Party when forced to do so.

by SecretFly Mon 04 Jul 2016, 3:30 pm

Munchkin wrote:

From reading your comments throughout the debate, I suspect you're something of a Corbyn supporter. Fine, if true, but don't let it cloud your own judgement. Corbyn is someone who is happy to criticise Israel, and yet call Hezbollah and Hamas his friends. He is someone who is happy to share a platform with those who call for the destruction of Israel. He is a leader that will only take action against anti-Semites within his Party when forced to do so.

I wouldn't suspect it, Munch - if I were you. Let's not be suspecting I'm anything until someone simply asks me, and I'll tell them, straight up, what I am and what I think of each of these people in the public eye.

We've been doing grand, you and I, up until now. Let's not spoil it by dropping me into 'camps' I'm not in.

I'm an out and out deep Eurosceptic from way back - fact - yes. No apologies to anyone for that.
I'm a Capitalist (not a greedy one Wink

, but philosophically one nonetheless) - I very much doubt Corby is.
Workers Unions are devils, milking the poor to keep them so.
I like Cameron - had I been a British subject with a vote, I'd probably have been voting for him - but against him on the EU Wink

Now, you have read more than enough of me on ye olde Rugby threads and perhaps other places to know I speak my mind above all else. I'm not held by loyalties or allegiances to any 'ism' or 'ist'. I'll defend Phil's right to his opinion as much as Sin's.

I don't have to like Corbyn or his ideals to use him or his words to discuss subjects that interest me. I don't have to like him or think he's a great politician to use him to sneer the Blairite Labourees who simply detest him because he embarrasses their more Tory 'expensive suit' pretentions.

When I talk about Corbyn and his words on Israel, I'm not talking about him; he's not the issue. I'm talking about the principle of not allowing this constant Excuse of anti-Semitism to constantly stall debate on some quite detestable Israeli policies. Israel is not above criticism. They can not and should not be allowed run to the 'anti-semitism' excuse every time they want to forcefully close down debate on their policies. Corbyn has nothing to do with that view - he's just the latest character that was drawn into it. Thus, I use him to debate the more fundamental point. Freedom of speech.... even for Sir Geldof of Smugness Wink

by **rodders** Mon 04 Jul 2016, 3:37 pm

SecretFly wrote:
I'm an out and out deep Eurosceptic from way back - fact - yes. No apologies to anyone for that.
I'm a Capitalist (not a greedy one , but philosophically one nonetheless) - I very much doubt Corby is.
Workers Unions are devils, milking the poor to keep them so.
I like Cameron - had I been a British subject with a vote, I'd probably have been voting for him - but against him on the EU

I don't believe it...fly is Michael Gove!

by SecretFly Mon 04 Jul 2016, 3:44 pm

rodders wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
I'm an out and out deep Eurosceptic from way back - fact - yes. No apologies to anyone for that.
I'm a Capitalist (not a greedy one , but philosophically one nonetheless) - I very much doubt Corby is.
Workers Unions are devils, milking the poor to keep them so.
I like Cameron - had I been a British subject with a vote, I'd probably have been voting for him - but against him on the EU

I don't believe it...fly is Michael Gove!

You see now. Are you all clear now? I am Brutus! I held the Dagger that felled poor Boris!!! *insert evil laugh that extends for four beats*

by **ShahenshahG** Mon 04 Jul 2016, 3:47 pm

SecretFly wrote:
rodders wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
I'm an out and out deep Eurosceptic from way back - fact - yes. No apologies to anyone for that.
I'm a Capitalist (not a greedy one , but philosophically one nonetheless) - I very much doubt Corby is.
Workers Unions are devils, milking the poor to keep them so.
I like Cameron - had I been a British subject with a vote, I'd probably have been voting for him - but against him on the EU

I don't believe it...fly is Michael Gove!

You see now. Are you all clear now? I am Brutus! I held the Dagger that felled poor Boris!!! *insert evil laugh that extends for four beats*

Secretfly as I now picture him:

by SecretFly Mon 04 Jul 2016, 3:50 pm

If that's your kind of Youtube entertainment of a cold winter's night Shah...I ain't gonna step in your way............... Nice boy..... that's a nice boy..............................

RUN EVERYONE!!!!! Run

by **ShahenshahG** Mon 04 Jul 2016, 3:56 pm

I am partial to horror, which goes someway to explaining my choice in a wife.

by Guest Mon 04 Jul 2016, 3:59 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Munchkin wrote:

From reading your comments throughout the debate, I suspect you're something of a Corbyn supporter. Fine, if true, but don't let it cloud your own judgement. Corbyn is someone who is happy to criticise Israel, and yet call Hezbollah and Hamas his friends. He is someone who is happy to share a platform with those who call for the destruction of Israel. He is a leader that will only take action against anti-Semites within his Party when forced to do so.

I wouldn't suspect it, Munch - if I were you. Let's not be suspecting I'm anything until someone simply asks me, and I'll tell them, straight up, what I am and what I think of each of these people in the public eye.

We've been doing grand, you and I, up until now. Let's not spoil it by dropping me into 'camps' I'm not in.

I'm an out and out deep Eurosceptic from way back - fact - yes. No apologies to anyone for that.
I'm a Capitalist (not a greedy one , but philosophically one nonetheless) - I very much doubt Corby is.
Workers Unions are devils, milking the poor to keep them so.
I like Cameron - had I been a British subject with a vote, I'd probably have been voting for him - but against him on the EU

Now, you have read more than enough of me on ye olde Rugby threads and perhaps other places to know I speak my mind above all else. I'm not held by loyalties or allegiances to any 'ism' or 'ist'. I'll defend Phil's right to his opinion as much as Sin's.

I don't have to like Corbyn or his ideals to use him or his words to discuss subjects that interest me. I don't have to like him or think he's a great politician to use him to sneer the Blairite Labourees who simply detest him because he embarrasses their more Tory 'expensive suit' pretentions.

When I talk about Corbyn and his words on Israel, I'm not talking about him; he's not the issue. I'm talking about the principle of not allowing this constant Excuse of anti-Semitism to constantly stall debate on some quite detestable Israeli policies. Israel is not above criticism. They can not and should not be allowed run to the 'anti-semitism' excuse every time they want to forcefully close down debate on their policies. Corbyn has nothing to do with that view - he's just the latest character that was drawn into it. Thus, I use him to debate the more fundamental point. Freedom of speech.... even for Sir Geldof of Smugness

That simply isn't true, fly. If you've really followed the online debates about Israel, you must know that debate is anything but 'forcefully closed down'. I have been involved in those debates. I know. Not just the online debates, Fly. The worlds media is most definitely not closed down when it comes to pointing fingers at Israel. The UN is awash with criticism of Israel. In fact, in a world that is being ripped apart with terrorism and wars that have sod all to do with Israel, it is the criticism of Israel that is at the forefront of social media, of universities, of Governments and world institutions.

Take a look around, Fly, it's quite revealing.

Have you ever heard of Hallel Yaffa Ariel? Did you know that she was a 13 year old girl, in Israel, stabbed to death in her bed while sleeping, by a Palestinian? It happened just last week. Maybe you do know about it, but there's been little enough media coverage I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't. What if it had have been an Israeli Jew murdering a Palestinian while they slept? What sort of media reaction do you think there would have been? It would have been a storm!

People don't run to the 'anti-semitism excuse' Fly. The whole "we are not racists", "we are simply attacking Israel not Jews", thing is a great line used by anti-Semites to excuse their anti-Semitic ranting. It's healthy to criticise any nation of it's policies and actions, and I'm sure there are some who use the anti-Semitic ticket to avoid criticism of israel, but many excuse there own anti-Semitism by it. Pointing to the anti-Semitism ticket can be a effective way of closing down protests against anti-Semitism.

Again, you're defending Corbyn, "Corbyn has nothing to do with that view". You're defending the indefensible.

Fly, I like you but, like you, I will also speak my mind.

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 04 Jul 2016, 4:09 pm

superflyweight wrote:Corbyn claims that he ambitions to be a statesman - although I don't think he actually does and I don't think the current labour regime has any interest in actually governing.

The government of Israel's policies are deserving of criticism and to criticise them is not by itself anti-Semitic. However, as a prospective statesman, Corbyn must realise he can't use the kind of language he did and essentially compare the Israeli government with ISIS. Criticise the policies by all means, but at least do so with some semblance of an understanding of how international diplomacy works.

He's either:
(a) naïve
(b) stupid
(c) destructive
(d) all of the above

My best guess is that he is (d).

He's stuck in a bygone era....and Britain isn't a left wing Country anyway........

Problem for Labour is the lack of centrists in their party.........The left are still reeling from what they see as being taken for granted and disregarded by Blair....Conversely the Blairites don't realise that left swinging voters have options now with UKIP......

The sensible ones in the middle haven't got a voice...and it is about time they found one..

by **superflyweight** Mon 04 Jul 2016, 4:21 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
superflyweight wrote:Corbyn claims that he ambitions to be a statesman - although I don't think he actually does and I don't think the current labour regime has any interest in actually governing.

The government of Israel's policies are deserving of criticism and to criticise them is not by itself anti-Semitic. However, as a prospective statesman, Corbyn must realise he can't use the kind of language he did and essentially compare the Israeli government with ISIS. Criticise the policies by all means, but at least do so with some semblance of an understanding of how international diplomacy works.

He's either:
(a) naïve
(b) stupid
(c) destructive
(d) all of the above

My best guess is that he is (d).

He's stuck in a bygone era....and Britain isn't a left wing Country anyway........

Problem for Labour is the lack of centrists in their party.........The left are still reeling from what they see as being taken for granted and disregarded by Blair....Conversely the Blairites don't realise that left swinging voters have options now with UKIP......

The sensible ones in the middle haven't got a voice...and it is about time they found one..

Spot on Truss. If the Tories are taken to the right and if the Corbynites either succeed in taking Labour to the left or if they split from the Labour party, there's a gaping hole in the middle for a centrist party (particularly given the slow, lingering death of the Liberal Democrats).

The SNP have succeeded (at winning votes anyway - their performance in government hasn't been great) in Scotland by occupying the middle but still retaining support from the left because of their constitutional position. Labour/Labour 2.0 could do the same job of occupying the middle ground and by pitching themselves as the "Remain" / Internationalist party.

by SecretFly Mon 04 Jul 2016, 4:41 pm

Munchkin wrote:

Again, you're defending Corbyn, "Corbyn has nothing to do with that view". You're defending the indefensible.

Fly, I like you but, like you, I will also speak my mind.

Yes, I have heard about the girl of 13. I heard about it last week.

You present a tragedy, a crime, a cowardly act as a t-it for tat debate, Munch. As if to say "Why didn't Corbyn criticise the Palestinians?" Ask him. But I doubt if his aide would be feeling the need to apologise to the Palestinians for the offence had he done so. Nobody would be talking about that either, Munch.

Unlike you - unlike you Munch, I do believe fully that the Central issue of continuing brutal war in that whole region revolves around the Israeli/Palestinian issue that is forever placed on the long long long finger because people ARE afraid to open their mouths lest they have careers ended because of taunts of anti-Semitism.

Anti-Semites can speak for themselves and use their own arguments, such as they are. Their views have nothing to do with me.

But again, you glide against the 'similarities' to suggest people should thread carefully when criticising Israel, even for legitimate defined reasons, lest they be linked to genuine A-grade Anti-Semites. Better not to speak lest someone thinks I have a sinister agenda? Leave the issue alone if there is a possibility someone might think me anti-Semite? It's like saying young, educated pluralist people shouldn't have voted for ~~Remain~~ Leave lest they be all seen now as old and poor, uneducated racists.

My point remains, and it isn't diluted by those anti-Semites, and it won't be tempered by allusions to them; Israel is a country. The constant attempt to kill debate by accusations of anti-Semitism stalls real efforts to bring about a peace ALL sides can live with in that region.

by funnyExiledScot Mon 04 Jul 2016, 4:46 pm

Why do people see UKIP as an option for left swinging voters? They are pro-austerity (i.e. keeping Osborne's fiscal targets), in favour of completely scrapping inheritance tax, in favour of tax cuts for those earing between £45k and £55k per annum (i.e. middle management) and cutting business rates, in favour of a 5 year wait before migrants can claim benefits, restricting child benefit to two children and lowering the cap on benefits. They are in favour of grammar schools, want to repeal the Climate Change Act and remove "green taxes". They also want to cut foreign aid and remove EU laws which hamper UK competitiveness (i.e. employee rights).

There is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the UKIP manifesto for a left wing traditional Labour voter to support. They are a right wing party in every sense, in favour of cutting taxes wherever possible with commensurate cuts to the state. If you are left wing and vote UKIP, especially now that we have a Brexit vote confirmed, it means you have no idea what you are doing.

by SecretFly Mon 04 Jul 2016, 4:50 pm

No UKIP will take the Blairite swing voters..... thus why the Shiny and Neat Labour party members want to get a head start on them by dropping the creased and stubbled left wing of the party...again. Wink

by funnyExiledScot Mon 04 Jul 2016, 4:56 pm

superflyweight wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
superflyweight wrote:Corbyn claims that he ambitions to be a statesman - although I don't think he actually does and I don't think the current labour regime has any interest in actually governing.

The government of Israel's policies are deserving of criticism and to criticise them is not by itself anti-Semitic. However, as a prospective statesman, Corbyn must realise he can't use the kind of language he did and essentially compare the Israeli government with ISIS. Criticise the policies by all means, but at least do so with some semblance of an understanding of how international diplomacy works.

He's either:
(a) naïve
(b) stupid
(c) destructive
(d) all of the above

My best guess is that he is (d).

He's stuck in a bygone era....and Britain isn't a left wing Country anyway........

Problem for Labour is the lack of centrists in their party.........The left are still reeling from what they see as being taken for granted and disregarded by Blair....Conversely the Blairites don't realise that left swinging voters have options now with UKIP......

The sensible ones in the middle haven't got a voice...and it is about time they found one..

Spot on Truss. If the Tories are taken to the right and if the Corbynites either succeed in taking Labour to the left or if they split from the Labour party, there's a gaping hole in the middle for a centrist party (particularly given the slow, lingering death of the Liberal Democrats).

The SNP have succeeded (at winning votes anyway - their performance in government hasn't been great) in Scotland by occupying the middle but still retaining support from the left because of their constitutional position. Labour/Labour 2.0 could do the same job of occupying the middle ground and by pitching themselves as the "Remain" / Internationalist party.

The success of the SNP is curious, because they actually outflanked Labour on the left for much of the last 15 years during which they formed an iron grip on Scottish politics. I actually don't think it has much to do with right/left, but more to do with independence and being seen to "fight for Scotland" in Westminster. They built a reputation of being competent in government (which I would question) and defending Scottish interests as a Labour Party which was basically a wing of the Westminster establishment. The SNP had all the talented politicians in Scotland whereas the Scottish Labour Party was weak and not listened to - all of Labour's talent in Scotland flocked to Westminster (Blair, Brown, Reid, Cook etc.). This was compounded by the likes of Brown and Miliband in particular who failed to take any notice of Labour in Scotland (Miliband once famously gave in an interview in Scotland ahead of the Scottish Labour Leadership elections and couldn't name a single candidate).

Labour is now to the left of the SNP once more, and it isn't really making a difference, which confirms my point. Meanwhile Davidson is making big inroads on a centre/right platform. A lot is made about Scotland being "left wing", but there always seems to be an agenda in Scotland (e.g. bashing the Tories after Thatcher or nationalism) which trumps left/right.

by **ShahenshahG** Mon 04 Jul 2016, 4:59 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:Why do people see UKIP as an option for left swinging voters? They are pro-austerity (i.e. keeping Osborne's fiscal targets), in favour of completely scrapping inheritance tax, in favour of tax cuts for those earing between £45k and £55k per annum (i.e. middle management) and cutting business rates, in favour of a 5 year wait before migrants can claim benefits, restricting child benefit to two children and lowering the cap on benefits. They are in favour of grammar schools, want to repeal the Climate Change Act and remove "green taxes". They also want to cut foreign aid and remove EU laws which hamper UK competitiveness (i.e. employee rights).

There is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the UKIP manifesto for a left wing traditional Labour voter to support. They are a right wing party in every sense, in favour of cutting taxes wherever possible with commensurate cuts to the state. If you are left wing and vote UKIP, especially now that we have a Brexit vote confirmed, it means you have no idea what you are doing.

Alot of these people voted for brexit FES.

by Duty281 Mon 04 Jul 2016, 5:01 pm

'Left-wing'. 'Right-wing'.

Meaningless labels of no value whatsoever.

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 04 Jul 2016, 5:02 pm

SecretFly wrote:No UKIP will take the Blairite swing voters..... thus why the Shiny and Neat Labour party members want to get a head start on them by dropping the creased and stubbled left wing of the party...again.

If you look at where UKIP is doing well it's in struggling Urban areas.......Because they are viewed by many as the anti-establishment protest party......People that blame immigration for their problems and feel rightly or wrongly that no one is listening to their struggles...

Blairite voters don't need to vote UKIP..

Because they are more aware of what UKIP is all about.......and the Status quo has been good to them......

by funnyExiledScot Mon 04 Jul 2016, 5:09 pm

SecretFly wrote:No UKIP will take the Blairite swing voters..... thus why the Shiny and Neat Labour party members want to get a head start on them by dropping the creased and stubbled left wing of the party...again.

You think New Labour voters, among which I count myself (despite recently defecting to the Lib Dems..), would switch to UKIP!? You think Blairites would turn to a party hell bent on cutting taxes, cutting the state, anti-European, cutting back workers rights and denying climate change??

Not in a million years.

UKIP appeals to people who are anti-establishment, like the idea of turning back the clock and prefer their leader to drink and smoke on the job. It also appeals to right wing Tories who feel that a soft-centred pro-European like Cameron, with all that namby pamby hug a hoodie nonsense, has betrayed their party. They are the "lock em up and throw away the key - prison works - get on your bike" Tories, who think of multiculturalism as vomit-inducing Guardian nonsense, and in Farage they find a man who can say all the "non-PC" stuff they really think. They'd have voted for Jeremy Clarkson had he stood.

by funnyExiledScot Mon 04 Jul 2016, 5:10 pm

ShahenshahG wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:Why do people see UKIP as an option for left swinging voters? They are pro-austerity (i.e. keeping Osborne's fiscal targets), in favour of completely scrapping inheritance tax, in favour of tax cuts for those earing between £45k and £55k per annum (i.e. middle management) and cutting business rates, in favour of a 5 year wait before migrants can claim benefits, restricting child benefit to two children and lowering the cap on benefits. They are in favour of grammar schools, want to repeal the Climate Change Act and remove "green taxes". They also want to cut foreign aid and remove EU laws which hamper UK competitiveness (i.e. employee rights).

There is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the UKIP manifesto for a left wing traditional Labour voter to support. They are a right wing party in every sense, in favour of cutting taxes wherever possible with commensurate cuts to the state. If you are left wing and vote UKIP, especially now that we have a Brexit vote confirmed, it means you have no idea what you are doing.

Alot of these people voted for brexit FES.

Agreed, but not a lot of them voted UKIP. There's a difference between voting to leave the EU, and then post-Leave deciding to support UKIP.

by funnyExiledScot Mon 04 Jul 2016, 5:11 pm

Duty281 wrote:'Left-wing'. 'Right-wing'.

Meaningless labels of no value whatsoever.

Wrong, as I've explained previously.

by Duty281 Mon 04 Jul 2016, 5:14 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:
Duty281 wrote:'Left-wing'. 'Right-wing'.

Meaningless labels of no value whatsoever.

Wrong, as I've explained previously.

You mean you disagree.

by SecretFly Mon 04 Jul 2016, 5:14 pm

If this guy Steven Woolfe takes over, he's smart enough and cool enough to appeal to Blairite semi-Conservative floaters.

One part of Labour IS going to become obsolete. It's already virtually two parties trying to share the same name. UKIP will step in to kill off one of those sides. I'd still say that's the Blairite side.

by Duty281 Mon 04 Jul 2016, 5:17 pm

Labour are a dead party. No recovery possible.

They will slide and descend into ever greater irrelevance as the years pass.

The door is shut.

by funnyExiledScot Mon 04 Jul 2016, 5:21 pm

Duty281 wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:
Duty281 wrote:'Left-wing'. 'Right-wing'.

Meaningless labels of no value whatsoever.

Wrong, as I've explained previously.

You mean you disagree.

I mean I set out previously a paragraph explaining why the traditional battle lines between left/right are still relevant to the current political discourse in UK politics and you have yet to provide any form of rebuttal beyond restating your position in a short 6 word sentence.

What I will grant you is that left/right did not prove relevant to the Brexit vote, as voters appeared to vote Brexit for bad reasons based on misinformation throughout all segments of the political spectrum Very Happy

by **ShahenshahG** Mon 04 Jul 2016, 5:26 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:
ShahenshahG wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:Why do people see UKIP as an option for left swinging voters? They are pro-austerity (i.e. keeping Osborne's fiscal targets), in favour of completely scrapping inheritance tax, in favour of tax cuts for those earing between £45k and £55k per annum (i.e. middle management) and cutting business rates, in favour of a 5 year wait before migrants can claim benefits, restricting child benefit to two children and lowering the cap on benefits. They are in favour of grammar schools, want to repeal the Climate Change Act and remove "green taxes". They also want to cut foreign aid and remove EU laws which hamper UK competitiveness (i.e. employee rights).

There is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the UKIP manifesto for a left wing traditional Labour voter to support. They are a right wing party in every sense, in favour of cutting taxes wherever possible with commensurate cuts to the state. If you are left wing and vote UKIP, especially now that we have a Brexit vote confirmed, it means you have no idea what you are doing.

Alot of these people voted for brexit FES.

Agreed, but not a lot of them voted UKIP. There's a difference between voting to leave the EU, and then post-Leave deciding to support UKIP.

I know, it was meant to be funny but I forgot how true it was

by funnyExiledScot Mon 04 Jul 2016, 5:27 pm

SecretFly wrote:If this guy Steven Woolfe takes over, he's smart enough and cool enough to appeal to Blairite semi-Conservative floaters.

One part of Labour IS going to become obsolete. It's already virtually two parties trying to share the same name. UKIP will step in to kill off one of those sides. I'd still say that's the Blairite side.

Well he'll need to completely re-write the UKIP manifesto in which case, and reverse almost all of its previous positions.

I do agree re: Labour however. If they stick with Corbyn they will be finished as a political party.

As for where the Blairites will go, I think much will depend on the direction taken by the Tories. Politically the Lib Dems are the natural destination, it's where I went having voted "New" Labour my entire life, but I will concede that the Lib Dem leadership is somewhat "under the radar" shall we say. I can see a centrist reforming Tory party under Michael Gove being attractive to some, but he does have a few crazy ideas plus his position on the NHS will be of keen interest to see whether he is indeed in favour of moving towards the US insurance-based model as some have suggested.

by Duty281 Mon 04 Jul 2016, 5:39 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:
Duty281 wrote:'Left-wing'. 'Right-wing'.

Meaningless labels of no value whatsoever.

Wrong, as I've explained previously.

You mean you disagree.

I mean I set out previously a paragraph explaining why the traditional battle lines between left/right are still relevant to the current political discourse in UK politics and you have yet to provide any form of rebuttal beyond restating your position in a short 6 word sentence.

What I will grant you is that left/right did not prove relevant to the Brexit vote, as voters appeared to vote Brexit for bad reasons based on misinformation throughout all segments of the political spectrum

Because 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' are static labels in a world of fluid thought. All parties, and people, hold supposed 'left' and 'right' viewpoints simultaneously.

by SecretFly Mon 04 Jul 2016, 5:45 pm

Duty281 wrote: All parties, and people, hold supposed 'left' and 'right' viewpoints simultaneously.

by Guest Mon 04 Jul 2016, 6:42 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Munchkin wrote:

Again, you're defending Corbyn, "Corbyn has nothing to do with that view". You're defending the indefensible.

Fly, I like you but, like you, I will also speak my mind.

Yes, I have heard about the girl of 13. I heard about it last week.

You present a tragedy, a crime, a cowardly act as a t-it for tat debate, Munch. As if to say "Why didn't Corbyn criticise the Palestinians?" Ask him. But I doubt if his aide would be feeling the need to apologise to the Palestinians for the offence had he done so. Nobody would be talking about that either, Munch.

Unlike you - unlike you Munch, I do believe fully that the Central issue of continuing brutal war in that whole region revolves around the Israeli/Palestinian issue that is forever placed on the long long long finger because people ARE afraid to open their mouths lest they have careers ended because of taunts of anti-Semitism.

Anti-Semites can speak for themselves and use their own arguments, such as they are. Their views have nothing to do with me.

But again, you glide against the 'similarities' to suggest people should thread carefully when criticising Israel, even for legitimate defined reasons, lest they be linked to genuine A-grade Anti-Semites. Better not to speak lest someone thinks I have a sinister agenda? Leave the issue alone if there is a possibility someone might think me anti-Semite? It's like saying young, educated pluralist people shouldn't have voted for ~~Remain~~ Leave lest they be all seen now as old and poor, uneducated racists.

My point remains, and it isn't diluted by those anti-Semites, and it won't be tempered by allusions to them; Israel is a country. The constant attempt to kill debate by accusations of anti-Semitism stalls real efforts to bring about a peace ALL sides can live with in that region.

The bit in bold. That's below you, Fly. You know exactly why I mentioned the murder and it has sod all to do with Corbyn, and everything to do with how much Israel is criticised, relative to others. I did clearly explain that, and you did understand.

As for your claim that the Middle East crisis revolves around the Israel/Palestinian conflict; what nonsense. You need to do a bit of research on the history of the Middle East. You are completely wrong.

by SecretFly Mon 04 Jul 2016, 7:22 pm

Middle East crisis having one of its very main friction points being the Israeli/Palestinian perpetually unresolved issue. Not nonsense...truth.

So we'll have to agree to disagree, Munch.

by Guest Mon 04 Jul 2016, 7:55 pm

SecretFly wrote:Middle East crisis having one of its very main friction points being the Israeli/Palestinian perpetually unresolved issue. Not nonsense...truth.

So we'll have to agree to disagree, Munch.

You have to go back to the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the creation of borders and the division of land between the British and the French. You also have to look at events surrounding the Balfour Declaration, and the duplicity of the British in making promises to both the Jews and the Arabs (they needed the Arabs on their side during the war).

The Israel/Palestinian conflict is a contributor to the Middle East conflict, no doubt, but not alone. Unless you believe the conspiracy theory idiots, who blame Israel for just about everything, you will know that none of the current conflicts in Iraq and Syria are the fault of Israel, or that of the Libyan civil war in North Africa.

There were tribal wars in the Middle East long before the creation of Israel, and if Israel ceased to exist, as some wish, tribal wars would continue.

I'm happy to agree to disagree, Fly, but also happy to continue the discussion in private, should you so wish.

Yours,

Munchkin Hug

by **ShahenshahG** Mon 04 Jul 2016, 8:33 pm

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/telegraph-online-pulls-article-that-claims-theresa-may-is-terrible-home-secretary/

by Guest Mon 04 Jul 2016, 8:40 pm

I'm sure all on this thread will rush to support this worthy cause:

YouKnowYouWant2

angel

by **ShahenshahG** Mon 04 Jul 2016, 8:47 pm

When did that get started?

by Guest Mon 04 Jul 2016, 9:00 pm

ShahenshahG wrote:When did that get started?

Three days ago, Shah. Think it will be largely ignored though. Nobody cares Sad

by **ShahenshahG** Mon 04 Jul 2016, 9:16 pm

I think everyone is fed up of the whole bloody circus.

by Guest Mon 04 Jul 2016, 9:28 pm

ShahenshahG wrote: I think everyone is fed up of the whole bloody circus.

It's a circus for sure, but still time for the jugglers and clowns and the tightrope acts to entertain the crowd. It will be nice when things get back to normal, and Trump is elected President Smile

by aucklandlaurie Mon 04 Jul 2016, 9:30 pm

Somewhat surprised to hear that Farage has resigned so that he can take over the vacancy left by Chris Evans at Top Gear.

by Corporalhumblebucket Mon 04 Jul 2016, 9:30 pm

ShahenshahG wrote: I think everyone is fed up of the whole bloody circus.

But the people mainly responsible for creating the mess are scarpering - leaving someone else to sort it. Rolling Eyes

by Duty281 Mon 04 Jul 2016, 9:41 pm

Munchkin wrote:I'm sure all on this thread will rush to support this worthy cause:

YouKnowYouWant2

Already signed.

by Duty281 Mon 04 Jul 2016, 9:42 pm

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:
ShahenshahG wrote: I think everyone is fed up of the whole bloody circus.

But the people mainly responsible for creating the mess are scarpering - leaving someone else to sort it.

The only one who has scarpered is Boris.

by **Hero** Mon 04 Jul 2016, 9:50 pm

Duty281 wrote:
Corporalhumblebucket wrote:
ShahenshahG wrote: I think everyone is fed up of the whole bloody circus.

But the people mainly responsible for creating the mess are scarpering - leaving someone else to sort it.

The only one who has scarpered is Boris.

And Cameron.

by Duty281 Mon 04 Jul 2016, 9:52 pm

Hero wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Corporalhumblebucket wrote:
ShahenshahG wrote: I think everyone is fed up of the whole bloody circus.

But the people mainly responsible for creating the mess are scarpering - leaving someone else to sort it.

The only one who has scarpered is Boris.

And Cameron.

Hurrah! #leadsom4leader

by SecretFly Mon 04 Jul 2016, 9:59 pm

Hero wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Corporalhumblebucket wrote:
ShahenshahG wrote: I think everyone is fed up of the whole bloody circus.

But the people mainly responsible for creating the mess are scarpering - leaving someone else to sort it.

The only one who has scarpered is Boris.

And Cameron.

And Roy

And Chris

All eyes on Heaven's Gate next.

by Duty281 Mon 04 Jul 2016, 11:12 pm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3672815/World-queues-win-trade-deals-Britain-Brexit.html

Global Britannia, not little Europe.

by **ShahenshahG** Tue 05 Jul 2016, 6:40 am

I thought you didn't read the daily mail? Just out of interest, what are we going to sell to them? Also, a lot more countries than mentioned in that article are lining up for deals - the stopped clock being right twice a day comes to mind. That was never the issue - it's going to take ages and we're going to be the ones making concessions instead of the others making concessions to us. As for

by **rodders** Tue 05 Jul 2016, 9:22 am

Duty281 wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3672815/World-queues-win-trade-deals-Britain-Brexit.html

Global Britannia, not little Europe.

Of course they are, we've a devalued currency, an economy on a negative outlook, the promise of 15% corporation tax rates and run a trade massive deficit - who wouldn't be lined up to take us to the cleaners?

by Sponsored content