The Politics Thread 2019

[Highgate]

 

[ariotofmyown]

8 hours ago, Highgate said:

 

Think that summed things up pretty well. It's a mess. And the people now sorting it out are a) of one extreme view and b) have no mandate to be making the decisions.

[Stive Pesley]

19 hours ago, Van Wolfie said:

So, left "fair" = good & right "fair" = bad.

"Fairness" isn't a good measure of anything because it's completely subjective.

As you just proved. I'm sure that those on both sides believe their definition of fairness to be the "good" one

 

[Wolfie]

2 hours ago, SchtivePesley said:

As you just proved. I'm sure that those on both sides believe their definition of fairness to be the "good" one

 

Eh?. I was just disappointed that an interesting post of yours then reverted to type.

[Stive Pesley]

14 minutes ago, Van Wolfie said:

Eh?. I was just disappointed that an interesting post of yours then reverted to type.

Well my original comment offered no judgement as to which interpretation of fairness was "good" or "bad"

Quote

hence the great polarisation we are starting to see between the "left" (who want to change the centre ground to be fairer to everyone regardless of their characteristics) and the "right" (who want to change the centre ground to be fairer towards only those that they feel deserve fairer treatment)

You assigned your own subjective opinion on the matter whilst bemoaning "fairness" as too subjective a term

[Van der MoodHoover]

well the only definition of "fair" that i have ever understood is "fair".

 

Cos old Ma Hants used to say to me as a kid "fair's fair!"  ? 

[Wolfie]

40 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

Well my original comment offered no judgement as to which interpretation of fairness was "good" or "bad"

Haha, really?. I'd wager that saying:

".....between the "left" (who want to change the centre ground to be fairer to everyone regardless of their characteristics) and the "right" (who want to change the centre ground to be fairer towards only those that they feel deserve fairer treatment"

....makes it pretty clear which you think is the better option.

[GboroRam]

1 minute ago, Van Wolfie said:

Haha, really?. I'd wager that saying:

".....between the "left" (who want to change the centre ground to be fairer to everyone regardless of their characteristics) and the "right" (who want to change the centre ground to be fairer towards only those that they feel deserve fairer treatment"

....makes it pretty clear which you think is the better option.

Does it?

Which one is it?

[Wolfie]

14 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Does it?

Which one is it?

[GboroRam]

6 hours ago, Van Wolfie said:

Steve's quote:

want to change the centre ground to be fairer to everyone regardless of their characteristics

OR

want to change the centre ground to be fairer towards only those that they feel deserve fairer treatment

I guess you feel the first is more fair? 

So you would not object to being fair to those who don't deserve it? 

Genuinely, I think plenty of right-leaning people have defended not allowing everyone equal treatment because they generally feel some groups aren't deserving of it. Whether it is Shamima Begum, asylum seekers, benefit claimants, lifers who've committed heinous crimes, and depending on where on the spectrum politically they lie - transgender people, gay bakers, unmarried mothers, foreign nationals, union activists and so on - there's a line that will be too much.

I thought Stive honestly hit upon a really good differentiation. Seems others didn't see it that way. 

[Stive Pesley]

15 hours ago, GboroRam said:

I thought Stive honestly hit upon a really good differentiation. Seems others didn't see it that way. 

It's my own fault really - there was clearly nothing in what I said which made it "pretty clear which I thought was the best option"

Wolfie was just making a valid assumption based on my swathes of previous left-leaning posts in this thread. Fair enough - but thanks Gboro for recognising in this instance, I was just trying to make a non-partisan interesting point.

I guess for some people it doesn't matter what I post, they just picture me kneeling at the feet of JC throughout ?

[G STAR RAM]

7 hours ago, SchtivePesley said:

I guess for some people it doesn't matter what I post, they just picture me kneeling at the feet of JC throughout 

Speaking of JC, what do you make of his latest antics?

Does he not realise the country has had enough of 3 years of silly game playing?

Why would we want him as temporary prime minister? 3 years down the line and still nobody knows his stance on Brexit!

[GboroRam]

4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Speaking of JC, what do you make of his latest antics?

Does he not realise the country has had enough of 3 years of silly game playing?

Why would we want him as temporary prime minister? 3 years down the line and still nobody knows his stance on Brexit!

If there was to be a caretaker prime minister, he leads the largest party in opposition. Logically he has to be the lead man to take the reins. 

Says a lot about the libdems, that they will happily prop up a coalition and push austerity, but refuse to support the one realistic option that might stop Brexit (which they claim must be stopped). Will support Tory attacks on working class people but won't support Labour on the most limited remit possible. 

[G STAR RAM]

7 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Says a lot about the libdems, that they will happily prop up a coalition and push austerity, but refuse to support the one realistic option that might stop Brexit (which they claim must be stopped). Will support Tory attacks on working class people but won't support Labour on the most limited remit possible. 

Or maybe it says a lot about what they think of JC.

As I asked, does anyone know what his position on Brexit is yet?

[GboroRam]

Just now, G STAR RAM said:

Or maybe it says a lot about what they think of JC.

As I asked, does anyone know what his position on Brexit is yet?

Stop no deal. 

[G STAR RAM]

1 minute ago, GboroRam said:

Stop no deal. 

That isnt a stance on Brexit. Does anyone know if he would rather leave or remain?

[GboroRam]

8 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

That isnt a stance on Brexit. Does anyone know if he would rather leave or remain?

https://labour.org.uk/latest/stories/labour-demands-brexit-public-vote/

I am proud to lead the Labour Party – the greatest political party and social movement in this country. 

We all recognise that the issue of Brexit has been divisive in our communities and sometimes in our party too. 

As democrats, Labour accepted the result of the 2016 referendum. In our 2017 manifesto, Labour also committed to oppose a No Deal Brexit and the Tories’ Brexit plans – which threatened jobs, living standards, and the open multicultural society that we as internationalists value so much. 

I want to pay tribute to Keir Starmer and the shadow Brexit team for holding the Government to account during this process. That helped secure a meaningful vote on their deal – which we then defeated three times – including inflicting the largest ever defeat on any Government. And following their refusal to publish their legal advice, this Government became the first to be held in contempt of Parliament. 

Labour set out a compromise plan to try to bring the country together based around a customs union, a strong single market relationship and protection of environmental regulations and rights at work. We continue to believe this is a sensible alternative that could bring the country together. 

But the Prime Minister refused to compromise and was unable to deliver, so we ended cross-party talks. 

Now both Tory leadership candidates are threatening a No Deal Brexit – or at best a race to the bottom and a sweetheart deal with Donald Trump: that runs down industry, opens up our NHS and other public services to yet more privatisation, and shreds environmental protections, rights at work and consumer standards. 

I have spent the past few weeks consulting with the shadow cabinet, MPs, affiliated unions and the NEC. I have also had feedback from members via the National Policy Forum consultation on Brexit. 

Whoever becomes the new Prime Minister should have the confidence to put their deal, or No Deal, back to the people in a public vote. 

In those circumstances, I want to make it clear that Labour would campaign for Remain against either No Deal or a Tory deal that does not protect the economy and jobs. 

Labour has a crucial, historic duty to safeguard jobs, rights and living standards. But no Brexit outcome alone can do that. 

We need a general election. After nine years of austerity, too many people in this country cannot find decent secure well-paid work and have to rely on public services that have been severely cut back. 

Our country is ravaged by inequality and rising poverty, huge regional imbalances of investment, and the government is failing to tackle the climate emergency facing us all. 

That is why we need a Labour government to end austerity and rebuild our country for the many, not the few.

Jeremy Corbyn 
Leader of the Labour Party

[ariotofmyown]

18 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

If there was to be a caretaker prime minister, he leads the largest party in opposition. Logically he has to be the lead man to take the reins. 

Says a lot about the libdems, that they will happily prop up a coalition and push austerity, but refuse to support the one realistic option that might stop Brexit (which they claim must be stopped). Will support Tory attacks on working class people but won't support Labour on the most limited remit possible. 

I think we need to get a centrist leader in that both labour and tory would be ok supporting. Harman or Clarke are the two been mentioned and I think they would command a decent majority to stop Johnson and his band of freaks.

Corbyn would be worried by this as the British people might decide they quite like something down the middle, then this centrist coalition ends up sticking together and winning a general election, perhaps even on the mandate of a 2nd referendum.

I think the majority of the UK would be happy with this outcome.

[GboroRam]

Just now, ariotofmyown said:

I think we need to get a centrist leader in that both labour and tory would be ok supporting. Harman or Clarke are the two been mentioned and I think they would command a decent majority to stop Johnson and his band of freaks.

Corbyn would be worried by this as the British people might decide they quite like something down the middle, then this centrist coalition ends up sticking together and winning a general election, perhaps even on the mandate of a 2nd referendum.

I think the majority of the UK would be happy with this outcome.

No chance Corbyn would accept that deal. He is leader of the opposition whether you like it or not. 

If he took a back seat in this he's basically admitting he can't lead the country. Why would he do that? 

Question for me is, how worried about Brexit are the lib dems? Or are they more worried about Corbyn leading a temporary government? 

Yes, Corbyn scares the crap out of the establishment. Ever wondered why? 

[ariotofmyown]

3 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

No chance Corbyn would accept that deal. He is leader of the opposition whether you like it or not. 

If he took a back seat in this he's basically admitting he can't lead the country. Why would he do that? 

Question for me is, how worried about Brexit are the lib dems? Or are they more worried about Corbyn leading a temporary government? 

Yes, Corbyn scares the crap out of the establishment. Ever wondered why? 

I'd be happy if JC was in charge, but I just think it wouldn't get enough support, then the blame for a No Deal debacle would forever be on Corbyn and Labour rather than Johnson and his lying mates.

I think Corbyn would get more kudos for the future in clearly not playing party politics and this would hopefully help him win the next election.

I think people are too obsessed with leaders in general anyway. We should have a cabinet which debates the direction and government to vote on their decisions.

Maybe don't even bother with a leader in a temporary cabinet. Get 9 or 11 senior politicians to vote between themselves on options for government to vote on. Leader of each party plus maybe an extra elderstateswoman/man from Tory and Labour. Free vote for everyone. Stop the madness.