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

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.

SecretFly wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

If there was to be a split in the current Labour Party, I think it would be wrong to blame those that left for the inevitable Tory victory at the next General Election (whenever that will be). I blame Corbyn and those that voted for him. You don't win UK General Elections on a platform of wanting a republic, re-nationalising industry, scrapping nuclear weapons and, as a likely side effect, leaving NATO (as well as the EU), breaking historically friendly ties with the US and failing to denounce and hold responsible terrorist organisations for their actions. You don't win UK General Elections by mumbling and bumbling your way through Prime Ministers Questions, for just reading out questions from the public and offering no challenge by way of follow-up and, when it came to the biggest issue put to the British public I can remember, for saying that you were "7/10" on it.

Corbyn is weak and dangerous. If he survives the challenge from Eagle (also a poor choice but hopefully just a means to an end in terms of ditching Corbyn) then I would strongly encourage supporters and members to abandon Labour and either join the Lib Dems, or create a new centre/left party on the principles of New Labour.

The kind of people that vote for Corbyn (and the kind that are joining the Labour party to bolster him again) would, in my opinion, not be remotely the kind of people that look at Prime Minister's Questions.  That show is to them a staged theatrical show of learned cat-calls and rehearsed ad-libs.  They don't buy that show.  I think this is actually symbolically an example of the divide between the party animals at Westminster (plus their followers) and that rebellious Membership.  The Labour Partyists are embarrassed by Corbyn's lack of Parliamentary etiquette and the Rebel Membership pour scorn on the theatrics of that Parliamentary presence.

That bit about disenchanted New Labour people moving over to Lib Dems, well that's correct.  Such natural movement of people to Parties that Genuinely reflect their political views, rather than holding on to ancient but hollow tribal traditions, will probably be the method of ending the drama circus.

Completely agree with that last paragraph. I think it's the two-party system that is at the heart of the difficulties people currently have with the establishment. The lack of choice guarantees that many people effectively have no-one to vote for, or at least no-one with a sniff of actually winning and influencing government.

If there was a General Election tomorrow I'd vote Lib Dem, which would be as productive as taking a waz against the wind. We know that only one of four outcomes are possible (in order of likelihood): Theresa May's Tories win, we have a minority Tory govt., we have a coalition (either Tory + Lib Dem + UKIP or Labour + Lib Dem + SNP + Green), or Jeremy Corbyn's Labour win.

I personally don't like any of those options but, despite having voted Labour at each and every opportunity presented since I turned 18 (other than the last Scottish elections), I think a Labour government with Corbyn in charge could well be my last choice. That's how bad he is.

Jeremy Corbyn is very likable and I agree with alot of what he says, but he doesnt have it in him to lead the country. He'd be much better suited as a senior MP ala Tony Benn or Dennis Skinner.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36770627

Comes as no surprise.

What doesn't? Corbyn calling for calm from Labour 'supporters' such as yourself?

No 7&1/2 wrote:What doesn't? Corbyn calling for calm from Labour 'supporters' such as yourself?

I think he means threats and intimidation

SecretFly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:What doesn't? Corbyn calling for calm from Labour 'supporters' such as yourself?

I think he means threats and intimidation

Cheers. To be honest thought he was going down the route of typical Labour. Human nature remains for everyone.

Why is it the lefties who resort to violence? You don't see the righties putting bricks through May's window, do you?

Ideal scenario for the country would be that Labour's center left/center/center right (so all those who don't share that idiots views) breaks away and Corbyn and his idiot cronies (Abbott, what a piece of mothball turdness she is) face political ruin.

Country would then have a soft left and be able to stand up for the more lefty ideas without sounding like lunatics all of the time.

Ha, true. You never see people on the right of the political spectrum get angry and use violence.

SecretFly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:What doesn't? Corbyn calling for calm from Labour 'supporters' such as yourself?

I think he means threats and intimidation

Exactly.

Duty281 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:What doesn't? Corbyn calling for calm from Labour 'supporters' such as yourself?

I think he means threats and intimidation

Exactly.

Why does it come as no surprise.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:What doesn't? Corbyn calling for calm from Labour 'supporters' such as yourself?

I think he means threats and intimidation

Exactly.

Why does it come as no surprise.

I am also wondering which bit is the 'surprise'? The brick through the window/ abuse calls to Eagle or the death threats to Corbyn?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:What doesn't? Corbyn calling for calm from Labour 'supporters' such as yourself?

I think he means threats and intimidation

Exactly.

Why does it come as no surprise.

Because Jeremy Corbyn is a prominent supporter of groups such as Hope not Hate/Unite Against Fascism who are well-known for instigating violence and intimidation against some of their opponents - usually UKIP, and it wouldn't surprise me if the brick put through Ms. Eagle's constituency office was from one of these groups, seeing as how it was an-almost daily occurrence during Mark Reckless' by-election campaign in 2014.

http://nopenothope.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/militant-rises-hope-not-hate-sutu.html
http://nopenothope.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/ukip-meps-home-attacked-with-bricks-as.html

Of course, I'm not saying Corbyn is ordering such attacks, but it does seem that he turns a blind eye to any violence perpetrated by these groups.

Which is why he spoke out about it, and wasn't he on the Andrew Marr show this last weekend saying he condemns it and it's certainly not in his name. As someone who backs Corbyn do you feel he turns a blind eye to violence, and if so why do you support him Duty?

The House of Commons will debate a petition for a second EU referendum on September 5th

Coxy001 wrote:Why is it the lefties who resort to violence? You don't see the righties putting bricks through May's window, do you?

The righties generally own the armies, and the armies are usually too busy to be throwing bricks through May's window.

BTW, I wonder who is threatening Corby? Right or Left?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Which is why he spoke out about it, and wasn't he on the Andrew Marr show this last weekend saying he condemns it and it's certainly not in his name. As someone who backs Corbyn do you feel he turns a blind eye to violence, and if so why do you support him Duty?

I 'support' him because he will bring about the end of the vile Labour Party.

He usually turns a blind eye to violence committed by these groups - this time he may feel obliged to condemn it with a statement (which is as far as he will go) because of his position.

Duty281 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Which is why he spoke out about it, and wasn't he on the Andrew Marr show this last weekend saying he condemns it and it's certainly not in his name. As someone who backs Corbyn do you feel he turns a blind eye to violence, and if so why do you support him Duty?

I 'support' him because he will bring about the end of the vile Labour Party.

He usually turns a blind eye to violence committed by these groups - this time he may feel obliged to condemn it with a statement (which is as far as he will go) because of his position.

So your earlier reply on what was best for a 'Socialist' party wasn't strictly true then; you consider them vile for some reason. You support having him in this post and said you would support him again, strange behaviour for someone who considers him and the current party vile. What would you consider turning a blind eye to violence exactly? Finally it is you who supports UKIP (the replacement for the BNP)?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Which is why he spoke out about it, and wasn't he on the Andrew Marr show this last weekend saying he condemns it and it's certainly not in his name. As someone who backs Corbyn do you feel he turns a blind eye to violence, and if so why do you support him Duty?

I 'support' him because he will bring about the end of the vile Labour Party.

He usually turns a blind eye to violence committed by these groups - this time he may feel obliged to condemn it with a statement (which is as far as he will go) because of his position.

So your earlier reply on what was best for a 'Socialist' party wasn't strictly true then; you consider them vile for some reason. You support having him in this post and said you would support him again, strange behaviour for someone who considers him and the current party vile. What would you consider turning a blind eye to violence exactly? Finally it is you who supports UKIP (the replacement for the BNP)?

Blind eye to violence - ignoring it. I don't believe Corbyn has ever criticised the actions of the UAF/Hope not Hate before becoming leader.

Yes, I do support UKIP (who are not a replacement for the BNP; I can't ever envisage the BNP having someone openly-gay standing for London Mayor, and UKIP's next leader wouldn't even be allowed to join the BNP!).

Duty281 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Which is why he spoke out about it, and wasn't he on the Andrew Marr show this last weekend saying he condemns it and it's certainly not in his name. As someone who backs Corbyn do you feel he turns a blind eye to violence, and if so why do you support him Duty?

I 'support' him because he will bring about the end of the vile Labour Party.

He usually turns a blind eye to violence committed by these groups - this time he may feel obliged to condemn it with a statement (which is as far as he will go) because of his position.

So your earlier reply on what was best for a 'Socialist' party wasn't strictly true then; you consider them vile for some reason. You support having him in this post and said you would support him again, strange behaviour for someone who considers him and the current party vile. What would you consider turning a blind eye to violence exactly? Finally it is you who supports UKIP (the replacement for the BNP)?

Blind eye to violence - ignoring it. I don't believe Corbyn has ever criticised the actions of the UAF/Hope not Hate before becoming leader.

Yes, I do support UKIP (who are not a replacement for the BNP; I can't ever envisage the BNP having someone openly-gay standing for London Mayor, and UKIP's next leader wouldn't even be allowed to join the BNP!).

There's gay people in all walks of life, even bigots. So Corbyn has spoken out about this violence now, even you admit it. on Marr, to the media in general. You paid money to vote and support this guy to bring down a party you don't like (presumably anything left of middle right of the centre), why are Labour vile (or more vile than any other party)? You were also supporting the far right Austrians weren't you? You don't see anyone else (on the right) as vile. I don't relly like the thought of any party having their voices drowned by people joining them who don't even agree with them. Not a good place to be.

No 7&1/2 wrote: I don't relly like the thought of any party having their voices drowned by people joining them who don't even agree with them. Not a good place to be.

Unfortunately, I think all walks of life are infused with a fair degree of spies in the ranks, people with motives that might not be all that honourable, people joining groups to undermine those very groups from within.
It's all part of the big party of life. It all happens - anything that can be invented by a fiction writer can happen in real life; and we've had pretty much acres of proof for that in these last number of weeks.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Which is why he spoke out about it, and wasn't he on the Andrew Marr show this last weekend saying he condemns it and it's certainly not in his name. As someone who backs Corbyn do you feel he turns a blind eye to violence, and if so why do you support him Duty?

I 'support' him because he will bring about the end of the vile Labour Party.

He usually turns a blind eye to violence committed by these groups - this time he may feel obliged to condemn it with a statement (which is as far as he will go) because of his position.

So your earlier reply on what was best for a 'Socialist' party wasn't strictly true then; you consider them vile for some reason. You support having him in this post and said you would support him again, strange behaviour for someone who considers him and the current party vile. What would you consider turning a blind eye to violence exactly? Finally it is you who supports UKIP (the replacement for the BNP)?

Blind eye to violence - ignoring it. I don't believe Corbyn has ever criticised the actions of the UAF/Hope not Hate before becoming leader.

Yes, I do support UKIP (who are not a replacement for the BNP; I can't ever envisage the BNP having someone openly-gay standing for London Mayor, and UKIP's next leader wouldn't even be allowed to join the BNP!).

There's gay people in all walks of life, even bigots. So Corbyn has spoken out about this violence now, even you admit it. on Marr, to the media in general. You paid money to vote and support this guy to bring down a party you don't like (presumably anything left of middle right of the centre), why are Labour vile (or more vile than any other party)? You were also supporting the far right Austrians weren't you? You don't see anyone else (on the right) as vile. I don't relly like the thought of any party having their voices drowned by people joining them who don't even agree with them. Not a good place to be.

Such labels - 'left-of-centre' 'far-right' - are meaningless. They have no merit.

For what's it worth, I think the Labour Party are the only major party I have a strong dislike for. I may disagree with the Greens/Lib Dems but I don't think I hold a strong dislike, or even minor dislike, of them.

I don't think I am at liberty on this forum to talk extensively about why Labour are vile. I've been given numerous tickings off in the past on this forum for doing so.

SecretFly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote: I don't relly like the thought of any party having their voices drowned by people joining them who don't even agree with them. Not a good place to be.

Unfortunately, I think all walks of life are infused with a fair degree of spies in the ranks, people with motives that might not be all that honourable, people joining groups to undermine those very groups from within.  
It's all part of the big party of life.  It all happens - anything that can be invented by a fiction writer can happen in real life; and we've had pretty much acres of proof for that in these last number of weeks.

But from someone who says they acknowledge the need for opposition?!

Duty281 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Which is why he spoke out about it, and wasn't he on the Andrew Marr show this last weekend saying he condemns it and it's certainly not in his name. As someone who backs Corbyn do you feel he turns a blind eye to violence, and if so why do you support him Duty?

I 'support' him because he will bring about the end of the vile Labour Party.

He usually turns a blind eye to violence committed by these groups - this time he may feel obliged to condemn it with a statement (which is as far as he will go) because of his position.

So your earlier reply on what was best for a 'Socialist' party wasn't strictly true then; you consider them vile for some reason. You support having him in this post and said you would support him again, strange behaviour for someone who considers him and the current party vile. What would you consider turning a blind eye to violence exactly? Finally it is you who supports UKIP (the replacement for the BNP)?

Blind eye to violence - ignoring it. I don't believe Corbyn has ever criticised the actions of the UAF/Hope not Hate before becoming leader.

Yes, I do support UKIP (who are not a replacement for the BNP; I can't ever envisage the BNP having someone openly-gay standing for London Mayor, and UKIP's next leader wouldn't even be allowed to join the BNP!).

There's gay people in all walks of life, even bigots. So Corbyn has spoken out about this violence now, even you admit it. on Marr, to the media in general. You paid money to vote and support this guy to bring down a party you don't like (presumably anything left of middle right of the centre), why are Labour vile (or more vile than any other party)? You were also supporting the far right Austrians weren't you? You don't see anyone else (on the right) as vile. I don't relly like the thought of any party having their voices drowned by people joining them who don't even agree with them. Not a good place to be.

Such labels - 'left-of-centre' 'far-right' - are meaningless. They have no merit.

For what's it worth, I think the Labour Party are the only major party I have a strong dislike for. I may disagree with the Greens/Lib Dems but I don't think I hold a strong dislike, or even minor dislike, of them.

I don't think I am at liberty on this forum to talk extensively about why Labour are vile. I've been given numerous tickings off in the past on this forum for doing so.

Left and right meaningless? Why? It's easy to see you're pretty far right from what you write, thinking of Labour as vile and professing you want them to end and have 2 parties to the right as government and opposition. I haven't seen your views on why Labour are vile, some parts of it are (some views on Jewish people recently are obvious), for me that's the same in all parties.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Which is why he spoke out about it, and wasn't he on the Andrew Marr show this last weekend saying he condemns it and it's certainly not in his name. As someone who backs Corbyn do you feel he turns a blind eye to violence, and if so why do you support him Duty?

I 'support' him because he will bring about the end of the vile Labour Party.

He usually turns a blind eye to violence committed by these groups - this time he may feel obliged to condemn it with a statement (which is as far as he will go) because of his position.

So your earlier reply on what was best for a 'Socialist' party wasn't strictly true then; you consider them vile for some reason. You support having him in this post and said you would support him again, strange behaviour for someone who considers him and the current party vile. What would you consider turning a blind eye to violence exactly? Finally it is you who supports UKIP (the replacement for the BNP)?

Blind eye to violence - ignoring it. I don't believe Corbyn has ever criticised the actions of the UAF/Hope not Hate before becoming leader.

Yes, I do support UKIP (who are not a replacement for the BNP; I can't ever envisage the BNP having someone openly-gay standing for London Mayor, and UKIP's next leader wouldn't even be allowed to join the BNP!).

There's gay people in all walks of life, even bigots. So Corbyn has spoken out about this violence now, even you admit it. on Marr, to the media in general. You paid money to vote and support this guy to bring down a party you don't like (presumably anything left of middle right of the centre), why are Labour vile (or more vile than any other party)? You were also supporting the far right Austrians weren't you? You don't see anyone else (on the right) as vile. I don't relly like the thought of any party having their voices drowned by people joining them who don't even agree with them. Not a good place to be.

Such labels - 'left-of-centre' 'far-right' - are meaningless. They have no merit.

For what's it worth, I think the Labour Party are the only major party I have a strong dislike for. I may disagree with the Greens/Lib Dems but I don't think I hold a strong dislike, or even minor dislike, of them.

I don't think I am at liberty on this forum to talk extensively about why Labour are vile. I've been given numerous tickings off in the past on this forum for doing so.

Left and right meaningless? Why? It's easy to see you're pretty far right from what you write, thinking of Labour as vile and professing you want them to end and have 2 parties to the right as government and opposition. I haven't seen your views on why Labour are vile, some parts of it are (some views on Jewish people recently are obvious), for me that's the same in all parties.

'Far-right'? What does that even mean?

On the political spectrum. And I said pretty far right. Why do you believe it's meaningless? Presumably you consider only some part of Labour vile? You surely find similar true for Tories, UKIP, BNP etc?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote: I don't relly like the thought of any party having their voices drowned by people joining them who don't even agree with them. Not a good place to be.

Unfortunately, I think all walks of life are infused with a fair degree of spies in the ranks, people with motives that might not be all that honourable, people joining groups to undermine those very groups from within.  
It's all part of the big party of life.  It all happens - anything that can be invented by a fiction writer can happen in real life; and we've had pretty much acres of proof for that in these last number of weeks.

But from someone who says they acknowledge the need for opposition?!

Ah I'm not really talking directly about Duty - he'll look after himself and his reasons for doing what he does.  I'm merely probably saying that the majority of people are a little too naïve about virtually everything - they believe the surface far too much; indeed, many people want to believe the surface, they don't want to contemplate a more complex world.

It's like drugs in sport.  Enthusiastic sports fans will want to believe the surface of the Olympics, that these athletes are stars and heros.  The cynics will think that a good number of them are cheating through the big Hollywood smiles.

Back to the Corbyn threats - who do we think targeted him?  Right? or Left?  Left to make it look like he was targeted by Right?  Right to make it look like he was targeted by Left?  Four options.

No 7&1/2 wrote:On the political spectrum. And I said pretty far right. Why do you believe it's meaningless? Presumably you consider only some part of Labour vile? You surely find similar true for Tories, UKIP, BNP etc?

Yes, I get that you mean on the political spectrum, but what does 'pretty far-right' mean? Can you define it?

Left and right-wing, to me, are meaningless labels because they indicate a state of static and rigid thought in a world of fluid thought. All people, and parties, have opinions and ideas that are considered 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' simultaneously.

And no, we're rather talking at cross-purposes. There are indeed a gaggle of idiots in every party, who say or do stupid things, but it is not to that which I'm referring when I call Labour vile. The BNP are of course vile, in every sense, but are a nothing party.

Corbyn says a lot about condemning violence and verbal abuse, but does little about it unless forced. The man speaks with forked tongue, methinks.

Labour NEC votes 17/15 (in favour) for a secret ballot on whether or not Corbyn should be automatically nominated. Corbyn apparently refusing to leave.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

Duty281 wrote:Labour NEC votes 17/15 (in favour) for a secret ballot on whether or not Corbyn should be automatically nominated. Corbyn apparently refusing to leave.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

He was actually refusing to leave the NEC room in which the ballot was held Eventually he was persuaded to leave. Silly man.

Duty281 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:On the political spectrum. And I said pretty far right. Why do you believe it's meaningless? Presumably you consider only some part of Labour vile? You surely find similar true for Tories, UKIP, BNP etc?

Yes, I get that you mean on the political spectrum, but what does 'pretty far-right' mean? Can you define it?

Left and right-wing, to me, are meaningless labels because they indicate a state of static and rigid thought in a world of fluid thought. All people, and parties, have opinions and ideas that are considered 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' simultaneously.

And no, we're rather talking at cross-purposes. There are indeed a gaggle of idiots in every party, who say or do stupid things, but it is not to that which I'm referring when I call Labour vile. The BNP are of course vile, in every sense, but are a nothing party.

I'm sure far brighter people than me have written what they define it as if you need to look it up. You're not left wing at all I would suggest, hence why you describe Labour as vile.

Munchkin wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Labour NEC votes 17/15 (in favour) for a secret ballot on whether or not Corbyn should be automatically nominated. Corbyn apparently refusing to leave.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

He was actually refusing to leave the NEC room in which the ballot was held  Eventually he was persuaded to leave. Silly man.

Where is it being reported? Can't find it.

Side note I've heard May is going to hold a big press conference outside #10 on Thursday morning with Leadsom, Gove and BoJo all invited.. all thinking they're going to get plumb cabinet jobs.. only for Osbourne and Cameron to emerge from the door behind them and armed with water pistols.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:On the political spectrum. And I said pretty far right. Why do you believe it's meaningless? Presumably you consider only some part of Labour vile? You surely find similar true for Tories, UKIP, BNP etc?

Yes, I get that you mean on the political spectrum, but what does 'pretty far-right' mean? Can you define it?

Left and right-wing, to me, are meaningless labels because they indicate a state of static and rigid thought in a world of fluid thought. All people, and parties, have opinions and ideas that are considered 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' simultaneously.

And no, we're rather talking at cross-purposes. There are indeed a gaggle of idiots in every party, who say or do stupid things, but it is not to that which I'm referring when I call Labour vile. The BNP are of course vile, in every sense, but are a nothing party.

I'm sure far brighter people than me have written what they define it as if you need to look it up. You're not left wing at all I would suggest, hence why you describe Labour as vile.

I don't need to look it up, I'm trying to get an understanding of what you mean when you say I'm 'pretty far-right'.

To name a few, I support immigration, the NHS, a multi-ethnic society, the minimum wage, democracy, freedom of speech - are these 'far-right' values?

Munchkin wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Labour NEC votes 17/15 (in favour) for a secret ballot on whether or not Corbyn should be automatically nominated. Corbyn apparently refusing to leave.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

He was actually refusing to leave the NEC room in which the ballot was held  Eventually he was persuaded to leave. Silly man.

Looks like his only chance now is to get the 50-odd MPs/MEPs he needs to get on the ballot paper.

Duty281 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:On the political spectrum. And I said pretty far right. Why do you believe it's meaningless? Presumably you consider only some part of Labour vile? You surely find similar true for Tories, UKIP, BNP etc?

Yes, I get that you mean on the political spectrum, but what does 'pretty far-right' mean? Can you define it?

Left and right-wing, to me, are meaningless labels because they indicate a state of static and rigid thought in a world of fluid thought. All people, and parties, have opinions and ideas that are considered 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' simultaneously.

And no, we're rather talking at cross-purposes. There are indeed a gaggle of idiots in every party, who say or do stupid things, but it is not to that which I'm referring when I call Labour vile. The BNP are of course vile, in every sense, but are a nothing party.

I'm sure far brighter people than me have written what they define it as if you need to look it up. You're not left wing at all I would suggest, hence why you describe Labour as vile.

I don't need to look it up, I'm trying to get an understanding of what you mean when you say I'm 'pretty far-right'.

To name a few, I support immigration, the NHS, a multi-ethnic society, the minimum wage, democracy, freedom of speech - are these 'far-right' values?

"Take back our country"

Yes, that's something someone would say who supports the above. We can go in to the psyche of a closet racist if you like.

Munchkin wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Labour NEC votes 17/15 (in favour) for a secret ballot on whether or not Corbyn should be automatically nominated. Corbyn apparently refusing to leave.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

He was actually refusing to leave the NEC room in which the ballot was held  Eventually he was persuaded to leave. Silly man.

We have been thinking that a chunk of the Labour party might split away to form a SDP II party. Way things are going we might find that Corbyn breaks away instead

Coxy001 wrote:

"Take back our country"

Yes, that's something someone would say who supports the above. We can go in to the psyche of a closet racist if you like.

Are there any countries not in the EU that are multicultural? Or does a Nation have to be in the EU to qualify for multi-cultural status?

Coxy001 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Labour NEC votes 17/15 (in favour) for a secret ballot on whether or not Corbyn should be automatically nominated. Corbyn apparently refusing to leave.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

He was actually refusing to leave the NEC room in which the ballot was held  Eventually he was persuaded to leave. Silly man.

Where is it being reported? Can't find it.

Side note I've heard May is going to hold a big press conference outside #10 on Thursday morning with Leadsom, Gove and BoJo all invited.. all thinking they're going to get plumb cabinet jobs.. only for Osbourne and Cameron to emerge from the door behind them and armed with water pistols.

Better the waterpistols than daggers, although I'm sure Gove isn't short of a dagger or two.

Here's the link: CorbynStampingHisFeet

Duty281 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Labour NEC votes 17/15 (in favour) for a secret ballot on whether or not Corbyn should be automatically nominated. Corbyn apparently refusing to leave.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

He was actually refusing to leave the NEC room in which the ballot was held  Eventually he was persuaded to leave. Silly man.

Looks like his only chance now is to get the 50-odd MPs/MEPs he needs to get on the ballot paper.

It does appear his only chance, but I am reading of possible court action if he excluded from running.

lostinwales wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Labour NEC votes 17/15 (in favour) for a secret ballot on whether or not Corbyn should be automatically nominated. Corbyn apparently refusing to leave.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

He was actually refusing to leave the NEC room in which the ballot was held  Eventually he was persuaded to leave. Silly man.

We have been thinking that a chunk of the Labour party might split away to form a SDP II party. Way things are going we might find that Corbyn breaks away instead

To be honest I think a split is probably the best outcome, but much better that Corbyn quits to form his own party. Labour needs a purge.

Duty281 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:On the political spectrum. And I said pretty far right. Why do you believe it's meaningless? Presumably you consider only some part of Labour vile? You surely find similar true for Tories, UKIP, BNP etc?

Yes, I get that you mean on the political spectrum, but what does 'pretty far-right' mean? Can you define it?

Left and right-wing, to me, are meaningless labels because they indicate a state of static and rigid thought in a world of fluid thought. All people, and parties, have opinions and ideas that are considered 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' simultaneously.

And no, we're rather talking at cross-purposes. There are indeed a gaggle of idiots in every party, who say or do stupid things, but it is not to that which I'm referring when I call Labour vile. The BNP are of course vile, in every sense, but are a nothing party.

I'm sure far brighter people than me have written what they define it as if you need to look it up. You're not left wing at all I would suggest, hence why you describe Labour as vile.

I don't need to look it up, I'm trying to get an understanding of what you mean when you say I'm 'pretty far-right'.

To name a few, I support immigration, the NHS, a multi-ethnic society, the minimum wage, democracy, freedom of speech - are these 'far-right' values?

Ha, yeah.

Munchkin wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Labour NEC votes 17/15 (in favour) for a secret ballot on whether or not Corbyn should be automatically nominated. Corbyn apparently refusing to leave.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

He was actually refusing to leave the NEC room in which the ballot was held  Eventually he was persuaded to leave. Silly man.

We have been thinking that a chunk of the Labour party might split away to form a SDP II party. Way things are going we might find that Corbyn breaks away instead

To be honest I think a split is probably the best outcome, but much better that Corbyn quits to form his own party. Labour needs a purge.

From that link of yours it does seem as if JC is going to be history. Cue Corbynistas going into a frenzy

Samo wrote:Jeremy Corbyn is very likable and I agree with alot of what he says, but he doesnt have it in him to lead the country.  He'd be much better suited as a senior MP ala Tony Benn or Dennis Skinner.

I assume by senior you mean "old"?

I actually think he'd be better suited to a local council position, where he could get himself obsessed by minor/trivial details that very few people care about. His low key/low impact approach would be better suited to that.

Duty281 wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36770627

Comes as no surprise.

No surprise at all. This is Corbyn's "new politics" in full swing.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:On the political spectrum. And I said pretty far right. Why do you believe it's meaningless? Presumably you consider only some part of Labour vile? You surely find similar true for Tories, UKIP, BNP etc?

Yes, I get that you mean on the political spectrum, but what does 'pretty far-right' mean? Can you define it?

Left and right-wing, to me, are meaningless labels because they indicate a state of static and rigid thought in a world of fluid thought. All people, and parties, have opinions and ideas that are considered 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' simultaneously.

And no, we're rather talking at cross-purposes. There are indeed a gaggle of idiots in every party, who say or do stupid things, but it is not to that which I'm referring when I call Labour vile. The BNP are of course vile, in every sense, but are a nothing party.

I'm sure far brighter people than me have written what they define it as if you need to look it up. You're not left wing at all I would suggest, hence why you describe Labour as vile.

I don't need to look it up, I'm trying to get an understanding of what you mean when you say I'm 'pretty far-right'.

To name a few, I support immigration, the NHS, a multi-ethnic society, the minimum wage, democracy, freedom of speech - are these 'far-right' values?

Ha, yeah.

Exactly - what you think isn't backed up the evidence. Sorry to disappoint you.

Munchkin wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Labour NEC votes 17/15 (in favour) for a secret ballot on whether or not Corbyn should be automatically nominated. Corbyn apparently refusing to leave.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

He was actually refusing to leave the NEC room in which the ballot was held  Eventually he was persuaded to leave. Silly man.

Looks like his only chance now is to get the 50-odd MPs/MEPs he needs to get on the ballot paper.

It does appear his only chance, but I am reading of possible court action if he excluded from running.

And if Corbyn did go down that road, it would truly highlight his desire to put himself before his party.

Principles, yeah!

Duty281 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:On the political spectrum. And I said pretty far right. Why do you believe it's meaningless? Presumably you consider only some part of Labour vile? You surely find similar true for Tories, UKIP, BNP etc?

Yes, I get that you mean on the political spectrum, but what does 'pretty far-right' mean? Can you define it?

Left and right-wing, to me, are meaningless labels because they indicate a state of static and rigid thought in a world of fluid thought. All people, and parties, have opinions and ideas that are considered 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' simultaneously.

And no, we're rather talking at cross-purposes. There are indeed a gaggle of idiots in every party, who say or do stupid things, but it is not to that which I'm referring when I call Labour vile. The BNP are of course vile, in every sense, but are a nothing party.

I'm sure far brighter people than me have written what they define it as if you need to look it up. You're not left wing at all I would suggest, hence why you describe Labour as vile.

I don't need to look it up, I'm trying to get an understanding of what you mean when you say I'm 'pretty far-right'.

To name a few, I support immigration, the NHS, a multi-ethnic society, the minimum wage, democracy, freedom of speech - are these 'far-right' values?

Ha, yeah.

Exactly - what you think isn't backed up the evidence. Sorry to disappoint you.

No disappointment, i'm sure you'd like to think you're not like all the other boys but you're right wing to the core. Not sure why you even pretend not to be?

Duty281 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Labour NEC votes 17/15 (in favour) for a secret ballot on whether or not Corbyn should be automatically nominated. Corbyn apparently refusing to leave.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

He was actually refusing to leave the NEC room in which the ballot was held  Eventually he was persuaded to leave. Silly man.

Looks like his only chance now is to get the 50-odd MPs/MEPs he needs to get on the ballot paper.

It does appear his only chance, but I am reading of possible court action if he excluded from running.

And if Corbyn did go down that road, it would truly highlight his desire to put himself before his party.

Principles, yeah!

Don't think the two hundred thousand odd members that supported Corbyn will be too happy about the shaft...

He had to go but surely they could have done it better...

Heaven knows why May is ruling out an election..

Corbyn will lose the center votes needed for a Labour win.......and the new leader will lose the left ones needed..

Labour is a joke..

lostinwales wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Labour NEC votes 17/15 (in favour) for a secret ballot on whether or not Corbyn should be automatically nominated. Corbyn apparently refusing to leave.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

He was actually refusing to leave the NEC room in which the ballot was held  Eventually he was persuaded to leave. Silly man.

We have been thinking that a chunk of the Labour party might split away to form a SDP II party. Way things are going we might find that Corbyn breaks away instead

To be honest I think a split is probably the best outcome, but much better that Corbyn quits to form his own party. Labour needs a purge.

From that link of yours it does seem as if JC is going to be history. Cue Corbynistas going into a frenzy

They will rage for a while, no doubt. I really don't like Momentum, or any of the old Loony Left. With a bit of luck this might be the time to get rid of them.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:On the political spectrum. And I said pretty far right. Why do you believe it's meaningless? Presumably you consider only some part of Labour vile? You surely find similar true for Tories, UKIP, BNP etc?

Yes, I get that you mean on the political spectrum, but what does 'pretty far-right' mean? Can you define it?

Left and right-wing, to me, are meaningless labels because they indicate a state of static and rigid thought in a world of fluid thought. All people, and parties, have opinions and ideas that are considered 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' simultaneously.

And no, we're rather talking at cross-purposes. There are indeed a gaggle of idiots in every party, who say or do stupid things, but it is not to that which I'm referring when I call Labour vile. The BNP are of course vile, in every sense, but are a nothing party.

I'm sure far brighter people than me have written what they define it as if you need to look it up. You're not left wing at all I would suggest, hence why you describe Labour as vile.

I don't need to look it up, I'm trying to get an understanding of what you mean when you say I'm 'pretty far-right'.

To name a few, I support immigration, the NHS, a multi-ethnic society, the minimum wage, democracy, freedom of speech - are these 'far-right' values?

Ha, yeah.

Exactly - what you think isn't backed up the evidence. Sorry to disappoint you.

No disappointment, i'm sure you'd like to think you're not like all the other boys but you're right wing to the core. Not sure why you even pretend not to be?

And I ask once again for your definition of this strange 'right-wing' thing, and your evidence for how I fit into said bracket?

Or are you just throwing around tired phrases without knowing their meaning?