[isleaiw1]

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 14 March 2024 - 04:21 PM, said:

Well here's the Green Party policy on migration: https://policy.green...oals/migration/

And here's Labour's: https://www.theguard...migration-plans

After I've already posted other confirmation that Labour will scrap the Rwanda thing.

So who's "making sh*t up".

You also twisted SKS "considering" processing applicants abroad into "So the plan is to do exactly the same thing (as the tories)!". An allegation which, even according to your own link. simply isn't true. Because what's reportedly 'under consideration' by Labour processes all claims properly then offers successful applicants the opportunity of settling here.

As opposed to the tory fiasco which immediately rejects every 'illegal' arrival - deemed as such because they've shut down every 'legal' route - and sends them to a destination described as unsafe by UK judges without any consideration whatsoever.

Then from what I can discern of the Greens', well, let's call them vague aspirations, there's no mention of where migrants will be processed. Though it does state "no person will be held in detention because of their immigration status". Which kinda sounds like they'll be allowed straight into UK society regardless. How nice.

Oh, and for what it's worth I didn't accuse you or anyone else of 'advocating open borders'. In fact if you read my post properly I clearly said "No party is advocating entirely open borders". Though the Greens do begin their statement by saying they "want to see a world without borders".

So, again, who's 'making sh*t up'?

I get voting Green. Fair play for that. But if your hatred of the current Opposition (turning an observation of what you quite rightly dub an "immoral" tory policy into another anti Labour sneer-fest?) means you'd rather spoil your ballot, then I've no respect whatsoever.

Though it confirms what my decades of membership have taught me: some on the Left would rather see tories elected than Labour MP's who aren't Left enough for them...

And yet you tell me that Labour will be safe in government and no one will want to take them further left...

By the way Rayner wants Abbott readmitted as an MP.... do you agree with that? Personally I'd rather Rayner concentrated on telling me how you avoid CGT on a second home (cos you cant have 2 principle private residences as a couple...even if you live in separate houses)

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

isleaiw1, on 14 March 2024 - 06:14 PM, said:

And yet you tell me that Labour will be safe in government and no one will want to take them further left...

By the way Rayner wants Abbott readmitted as an MP.... do you agree with that? Personally I'd rather Rayner concentrated on telling me how you avoid CGT on a second home (cos you cant have 2 principle private residences as a couple...even if you live in separate houses)

Well you've certainly added the balance you so often award yourself, Ian.

Our friend 'turrhall' won't vote Labour 'cos they're not left enough, and you won't vote for 'em 'cos they're too left.

Or might be. Perhaps. Just maybe. At some unspecified point in the future. Because of a union led conspiracy. Possibly.

Then despite all the available ammo to snipe at tories you post one at Angie Raynor instead. Over summat long sorted.

But hey, you've no anti Labour prejudices whatsoever...

PS: DA is an MP. No Labour whip, though. And yes, I would have her back, simply for the extra protection it'd offer...

This post has been edited by The Earl of Chesterfield: 14 March 2024 - 06:49 PM

[isleaiw1]

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 14 March 2024 - 06:47 PM, said:

Well you've certainly added the balance you so often award yourself, Ian.

Our friend 'turrhall' won't vote Labour 'cos they're not left enough, and you won't vote for 'em 'cos they're too left.

Or might be. Perhaps. Just maybe. At some unspecified point in the future. Because of a union led conspiracy. Possibly.

Then despite all the available ammo to snipe at tories you post one at Angie Raynor instead. Over summat long sorted.

But hey, you've no anti Labour prejudices whatsoever...

PS: DA is an MP. No Labour whip, though. And yes, I would have her back, simply for the extra protection it'd offer...

You see there you go again, putting words in my mouth that arent there. I will look at the manifestos and decide who to vote for when they tell me what they are going to do - and when I have decided if I trust them to deliver that and not a load of other stuff too...

Is the Rayner stuff sorted? Has she paid the CGT? Cos I havent seen ANYTHING that explains how she can avoid it on a second home (and I know a couple who lived in separate houses all week because of work but still had to pay CGT when they sold one - and he was a tax partner in a big accountancy firm)

Glad we have it sorted re DA. So she can come back despite being racist but this donor should be sent off and his money returned and never be a donor again for being racist. Consistent.... Not.

But you know I'm just asking questions to work out if its a same view for both parties...

ETA here is a link that explains it although you may be surprised to find I dont by the forgot bit and I'd say as a politician you SHOULD make sure you are whiter than white on these things. So I'll put it down to duplicity or stupidity - and a sackable offence...

This post has been edited by isleaiw1: 14 March 2024 - 07:17 PM

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

isleaiw1, on 14 March 2024 - 07:13 PM, said:

You see there you go again, putting words in my mouth that arent there. I will look at the manifestos and decide who to vote for when they tell me what they are going to do - and when I have decided if I trust them to deliver that and not a load of other stuff too...

Is the Rayner stuff sorted? Has she paid the CGT? Cos I havent seen ANYTHING that explains how she can avoid it on a second home (and I know a couple who lived in separate houses all week because of work but still had to pay CGT when they sold one - and he was a tax partner in a big accountancy firm)

Glad we have it sorted re DA. So she can come back despite being racist but this donor should be sent off and his money returned and never be a donor again for being racist. Consistent.... Not.

But you know I'm just asking questions to work out if its a same view for both parties...

ETA here is a link that explains it although you may be surprised to find I dont by the forgot bit and I'd say as a politician you SHOULD make sure you are whiter than white on these things. So I'll put it down to duplicity or stupidity - and a sackable offence...

Where are the words you haven't said?

Are you now denying your multiple conspiracy theories surrounding some leftist takeover of Labour? All your inferences and accusations of underhand union activity?

The ones I asked you to substantiate only to be met with a single, several years old and pretty much irrelevant link, of course.

Please stop these eye rollingly predictable games, Ian. Treating observers of this forum as stupid. You're prejudiced against the Left and everyone can see it.

Then for all her faults DA is no racist. Now who's the one putting words in people's mouths. The letter leading to her suspension was ABOUT racism and considered to have made a distinction between that suffered by different peoples. So her party suspended the whip pending an investigation.

At no point did she call for anyone to be shot or say she'd hate an entire gender or race because of one individual. So, again, please stop desperately seeking some sort of equivalence for Hester and his party's depravities.

Abbott's now spent a year suspended, more than enough time for a decision. Why has none been forthcoming? No idea. But given recent events Labour should offer her the safety of numbers and make that decision pronto...

[isleaiw1]

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 14 March 2024 - 08:19 PM, said:

Where are the words you haven't said?

Are you now denying your multiple conspiracy theories surrounding some leftist takeover of Labour? All your inferences and accusations of underhand union activity?

The ones I asked you to substantiate only to be met with a single, several years old and pretty much irrelevant link, of course.

Please stop these eye rollingly predictable games, Ian. Treating observers of this forum as stupid. You're prejudiced against the Left and everyone can see it.

Then for all her faults DA is no racist. Now who's the one putting words in people's mouths. The letter leading to her suspension was ABOUT racism and considered to have made a distinction between that suffered by different peoples. So her party suspended the whip pending an investigation.

At no point did she call for anyone to be shot or say she'd hate an entire gender or race because of one individual. So, again, please stop desperately seeking some sort of equivalence for Hester and his party's depravities.

Abbott's now spent a year suspended, more than enough time for a decision. Why has none been forthcoming? No idea. But given recent events Labour should offer her the safety of numbers and make that decision pronto...

No, my worries are that SKS wins and then when there is a taste of power, the divisions in the party come to the fore (after all, they are obvious here as its clear turrhall would vote Labour if a Corbynite was in), the unions see a chance to get all their christmases at once and we end up with something we didnt vote for. Which of course is what you always criticise when you talk about Tory leaders and policies not being the elected ones...

I'm prejudiced against not getting what I paid or voted for. You make great spiel about the LDs going back on the tuition fees matter, what would you ay if SKS wins on one manifesto and then 2 years down the line, the party heads left and delivers stuff that were never in the manifesto? There is clearly a left leaning element as since the last Labour (sorry, New Labour) victory, most of the leadership has been left - and before centrist Blair it was left...

I'm prejudidced against people who earn a living in politics to be honest, they all seem more inclined to feather their own nest than help the country.

PS the words you said that I havent... I wont vote Labour. I will read the manifestos and decide. We all know you will vote red whoever is in charge and whatever they say, hey you even vote for Labour under Corbyn!

This post has been edited by isleaiw1: 15 March 2024 - 09:31 AM

[turrhall]

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 14 March 2024 - 04:21 PM, said:

Well here's the Green Party policy on migration: https://policy.green...oals/migration/

And here's Labour's: https://www.theguard...migration-plans

After I've already posted other confirmation that Labour will scrap the Rwanda thing.

So who's "making sh*t up".

You also twisted SKS "considering" processing applicants abroad into "So the plan is to do exactly the same thing (as the tories)!". An allegation which, even according to your own link. simply isn't true. Because what's reportedly 'under consideration' by Labour processes all claims properly then offers successful applicants the opportunity of settling here.

As opposed to the tory fiasco which immediately rejects every 'illegal' arrival - deemed as such because they've shut down every 'legal' route - and sends them to a destination described as unsafe by UK judges without any consideration whatsoever.

Then from what I can discern of the Greens', well, let's call them vague aspirations, there's no mention of where migrants will be processed. Though it does state "no person will be held in detention because of their immigration status". Which kinda sounds like they'll be allowed straight into UK society regardless. How nice.

Oh, and for what it's worth I didn't accuse you or anyone else of 'advocating open borders'. In fact if you read my post properly I clearly said "No party is advocating entirely open borders". Though the Greens do begin their statement by saying they "want to see a world without borders".

So, again, who's 'making sh*t up'?

I get voting Green. Fair play for that. But if your hatred of the current Opposition (turning an observation of what you quite rightly dub an "immoral" tory policy into another anti Labour sneer-fest?) means you'd rather spoil your ballot, then I've no respect whatsoever.

Though it confirms what my decades of membership have taught me: some on the Left would rather see tories elected than Labour MP's who aren't Left enough for them...

"Oh, and for what it's worth I didn't accuse you or anyone else of 'advocating open borders'. In fact if you read my post properly I clearly said "No party is advocating entirely open borders"."

Your clear implication was that no party is advocating open borders, so tough **** for you.

"After I've already posted other confirmation that Labour will scrap the Rwanda thing.

So who's "making sh*t up"."

If they want to scrap Rwanda and replace it with a different third country, what difference does it make? It is for all intents and purposes the same policy, it's window-dressing.


"Then from what I can discern of the Greens', well, let's call them vague aspirations, there's no mention of where migrants will be processed. Though it does state "no person will be held in detention because of their immigration status". Which kinda sounds like they'll be allowed straight into UK society regardless. How nice."

So your argument is that Labour won't be considering asylum applicants as 'illegal' (which you appear to be supportive of) but god forbid they come into the country they are applying to settle in?

Also funny that when Labour's own 'vague aspirations' (because who knows, they'll be different anyway in 3 months) may as well have been brought down from the mount on stone tablets but Green policy isn't to be trusted or respected as far as you're concerned.

"I get voting Green. Fair play for that. But if your hatred of the current Opposition (turning an observation of what you quite rightly dub an "immoral" tory policy into another anti Labour sneer-fest?) means you'd rather spoil your ballot, then I've no respect whatsoever."

Lucky I don't care about getting your respect isn't it. I won't be railroaded into voting for the Labour Party by being offered f-all beyond them not being the Tories by smug Labour-right ghouls. You want my vote, offer policies that I might want to vote for, you're not owed it.

May have mentioned this before, but I also don't live in Chesterfield anymore, my MP is Christian f-ing Wakeford - should I skip down to my local polling station on election day and put my X next to his name to keep Tories out? Are his politics 'good' now or are they the just the "same but with different rosette on" (his own words, not mine).

"Though it confirms what my decades of membership have taught me: some on the Left would rather see tories elected than Labour MP's who aren't Left enough for them..."

Incredibly tedious, wouldn't expect anything less from you - if I wanted to vote Tory I would. I never have and I will never will. What I would like to see is the current Labour Party act like at least a centre-left party. I have voted for them in every election I've been eligible to, General, European, Local. I've held my nose for leaders I've not been enamoured with because they are the lesser of two evils, but there's a line that Starmer, and the party generally, has crossed for me and it's not happening next time. And it doesn't even matter anyway. They're are going to win with a Ba'ath Party majority and when not a single thing changes in this country for the better for the majority of people, the Tories will be back in for another 20 years.

This post has been edited by turrhall: 15 March 2024 - 12:43 PM

[turrhall]

isleaiw1, on 15 March 2024 - 09:29 AM, said:

after all, they are obvious here as its clear turrhall would vote Labour if a Corbynite was in

First off, 'being a Corbynite/"Corbynism"' isn't a thing for that exists in reality. Corbyn did not invent mild social democracy, or whatever other label you want to describe him as. I would guess 'socialist/Marxist/communist'.

Secondly, yeah shocker, I'm more inclined to vote for a party when the leader espouses something closer to my political beliefs. Why is this a point even worth making? I didn't vote Labour in 2017 and 2019 for Corbyn, but for the policies Labour supported at the time.

I promise you that you don't need to worry about Labour under Starmer 'moving left' or doing incrementalism towards the left, because it just can't and won't happen currently. Labour spend all their time punching left and flushing any remaining left-wing voices who are still in the party out, or into political obscurity. Post Corbyn, the Labour-right did what Corbyn, didn't do (but was accused of doing) and should have done, which is to crackdown on dissenters on the other side of the party and remove any remaining sway they had.

This post has been edited by turrhall: 15 March 2024 - 12:40 PM

[Goku]

turrhall, on 15 March 2024 - 12:36 PM, said:

I promise you that you don't need to worry about Labour under Starmer 'moving left' or doing incrementalism towards the left, because it just can't and won't happen currently. Labour spend all their time punching left and flushing any remaining left-wing voices who are still in the party out, or into obscurity.

Correct. Funny seeing Ian worrying about the far left boogeymen coming to get him, absolutely no chance.

[isleaiw1]

turrhall, on 15 March 2024 - 12:36 PM, said:

First off, 'being a Corbynite/"Corbynism"' isn't a thing for that exists in reality. Corbyn did not invent mild social democracy, or whatever other label you want to describe him as. I would guess 'socialist/Marxist/communist'.

Secondly, yeah shocker, I'm more inclined to vote for a party when the leader espouses something closer to my political beliefs. Why is this a point even worth making? I didn't vote Labour in 2017 and 2019 for Corbyn, but for the policies Labour supported at the time.

I promise you that you don't need to worry about Labour under Starmer 'moving left' or doing incrementalism towards the left, because it just can't and won't happen currently. Labour spend all their time punching left and flushing any remaining left-wing voices who are still in the party out, or into political obscurity. Post Corbyn, the Labour-right did what Corbyn, didn't do (but was accused of doing) and should have done, which is to crackdown on dissenters on the other side of the party and remove any remaining sway they had.

Apologies if you felt it was an insult, I was just pointing out that the Labour party is a broad church and divisions are always harder to hide when there is actually some power to be had, as Chris loves to point to divisions in the Tory party whilst clearly blinkered to the issues in his own party.

I am not as convinced as you. Most of Labour's funding still comes from the Unions I believe. If they, havent got power, dont like what Starmer is doing, then I am sure they can organise a rebellion within and ensure there is a move to the left...

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

turrhall, on 15 March 2024 - 12:28 PM, said:

"Oh, and for what it's worth I didn't accuse you or anyone else of 'advocating open borders'. In fact if you read my post properly I clearly said "No party is advocating entirely open borders"."

Your clear implication was that no party is advocating open borders, so tough **** for you.

"After I've already posted other confirmation that Labour will scrap the Rwanda thing.

So who's "making sh*t up"."

If they want to scrap Rwanda and replace it with a different third country, what difference does it make? It is for all intents and purposes the same policy, it's window-dressing.


"Then from what I can discern of the Greens', well, let's call them vague aspirations, there's no mention of where migrants will be processed. Though it does state "no person will be held in detention because of their immigration status". Which kinda sounds like they'll be allowed straight into UK society regardless. How nice."

So your argument is that Labour won't be considering asylum applicants as 'illegal' (which you appear to be supportive of) but god forbid they come into the country they are applying to settle in?

Also funny that when Labour's own 'vague aspirations' (because who knows, they'll be different anyway in 3 months) may as well have been brought down from the mount on stone tablets but Green policy isn't to be trusted or respected as far as you're concerned.

"I get voting Green. Fair play for that. But if your hatred of the current Opposition (turning an observation of what you quite rightly dub an "immoral" tory policy into another anti Labour sneer-fest?) means you'd rather spoil your ballot, then I've no respect whatsoever."

Lucky I don't care about getting your respect isn't it. I won't be railroaded into voting for the Labour Party by being offered f-all beyond them not being the Tories by smug Labour-right ghouls. You want my vote, offer policies that I might want to vote for, you're not owed it.

May have mentioned this before, but I also don't live in Chesterfield anymore, my MP is Christian f-ing Wakeford - should I skip down to my local polling station on election day and put my X next to his name to keep Tories out? Are his politics 'good' now or are they the just the "same but with different rosette on" (his own words, not mine).

"Though it confirms what my decades of membership have taught me: some on the Left would rather see tories elected than Labour MP's who aren't Left enough for them..."

Incredibly tedious, wouldn't expect anything less from you - if I wanted to vote Tory I would. I never have and I will never will. What I would like to see is the current Labour Party act like at least a centre-left party. I have voted for them in every election I've been eligible to, General, European, Local. I've held my nose for leaders I've not been enamoured with because they are the lesser of two evils, but there's a line that Starmer, and the party generally, has crossed for me and it's not happening next time. And it doesn't even matter anyway. They're are going to win with a Ba'ath Party majority and when not a single thing changes in this country for the better for the majority of people, the Tories will be back in for another 20 years.

You seem a very angry individual. Peppering posts with profanities and getting personal. Very much like someone else who used to contribute, infact.

Either way you asked if Labour would scrap the Rwanda policy. The answer's an unequivical 'Yes'. You wanna twist and turn the links proving it into another sneer fest? Hide behind words like "implication" or "intents and purposes" rather than accept being wrong? Okay, be my guest. Just stop accusing me of saying the opposite of what's there in black and white. Especially when the Greens you might support really do advocate a "world without borders".

I couldn't care less who you do vote for. Cross the box of whoever you choose. Though it's beyond pious to trash those others endorse whilst endorsing no one yourself. Cowardly, even.

Besides, I'm sure there's a bloke dressed as a chicken or summat who'd still be loads better than the Reflux candidate...

This post has been edited by The Earl of Chesterfield: 15 March 2024 - 01:49 PM

[isleaiw1]

Goku, on 15 March 2024 - 12:39 PM, said:

Correct. Funny seeing Ian worrying about the far left boogeymen coming to get him, absolutely no chance.

Not me young Josh, my career is coming to a close and I have my assets and pension. If the left wreck the economy (and find me a country where the left have been in power and not done that whilst helping the workers) causing worse job opps, career opps, lower standards of living, it will be your generation and my kids that pay the price. Not so fussed about you (but I would like you to be able to look after your kids) but I'd like my kid and grandkids to be able to have a good life....

PS I used research to base those comments on and in particular this from an academic paper by Osterloh in 2012 when talking about the impact on GDP of particular policies....

A strong and robust negative impact can be detected for policies related to market interventions, whereas a positive impact can be found for policies which aim at setting incentives for business and policies promoting technology and infrastructure. These effects are shown to be robust in a number of different empirical specifications, as well as in a model averaging approach which accounts for model uncertainty, a problem inherent in growth regressions.

So yes, I worry about the lefty market intervention bogeyman messing up economic propsperity for you youngsters...and to be fair me to the extent that falling share prices due to poor performance impact my pension pot (although a fair chunk of that will be non UK companies ahead of the election...)

[turrhall]

isleaiw1, on 15 March 2024 - 01:18 PM, said:

Apologies if you felt it was an insult, I was just pointing out that the Labour party is a broad church and divisions are always harder to hide when there is actually some power to be had, as Chris loves to point to divisions in the Tory party whilst clearly blinkered to the issues in his own party.

I am not as convinced as you. Most of Labour's funding still comes from the Unions I believe. If they, havent got power, dont like what Starmer is doing, then I am sure they can organise a rebellion within and ensure there is a move to the left...

Sorry, possibly went in too hard.

No doubt Unions hold some power over the PLP, Starmer tried to get rid of 'one member, one vote' policy that came in when Miliband was leadee so no doubt he/they know it too. But, in my opinion anyway, most Union leaders aren't exact the firebrands that you imagine of the past. I think they are probably reasonably easy to control for the PLP. I'm in Unison and the deal we were being told to accept last year was complete crap for example. Of course this sort of thing is anecdotal, but I think gives you an idea of how union higher ups are more middle managers than real idealists.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

isleaiw1, on 15 March 2024 - 01:27 PM, said:

Not me young Josh, my career is coming to a close and I have my assets and pension. If the left wreck the economy (and find me a country where the left have been in power and not done that whilst helping the workers) causing worse job opps, career opps, lower standards of living, it will be your generation and my kids that pay the price. Not so fussed about you (but I would like you to be able to look after your kids) but I'd like my kid and grandkids to be able to have a good life....

PS I used research to base those comments on and in particular this from an academic paper by Osterloh in 2012 when talking about the impact on GDP of particular policies....

A strong and robust negative impact can be detected for policies related to market interventions, whereas a positive impact can be found for policies which aim at setting incentives for business and policies promoting technology and infrastructure. These effects are shown to be robust in a number of different empirical specifications, as well as in a model averaging approach which accounts for model uncertainty, a problem inherent in growth regressions.

So yes, I worry about the lefty market intervention bogeyman messing up economic propsperity for you youngsters...and to be fair me to the extent that falling share prices due to poor performance impact my pension pot (although a fair chunk of that will be non UK companies ahead of the election...)

Yup, watch out for them 'reds under the bed', Ian.

Far more dangerous than a Truss who really did come within a multi-billion pound bale-out of busting the banks, the countless tories continuing to advocate her approach or the Mail-esque media and secretive Tufton Street lobby groups cheering them on...

[isleaiw1]

turrhall, on 15 March 2024 - 01:40 PM, said:

Sorry, possibly went in too hard.

No doubt Unions hold some power over the PLP, Starmer tried to get rid of 'one member, one vote' policy that came in when Miliband was leadee so no doubt he/they know it too. But, in my opinion anyway, most Union leaders aren't exact the firebrands that you imagine of the past. I think they are probably reasonably easy to control for the PLP. I'm in Unison and the deal we were being told to accept last year was complete crap for example. Of course this sort of thing is anecdotal, but I think gives you an idea of how union higher ups are more middle managers than real idealists.

Yep, I'd include them in the politician camp and not much use to anyone these days...

There are still one or two that seem to be more keen on causing trouble than getting overall benefits for their workers...but I guess they have to justify their positions and salaries...which arent middle manager (225k for UNISON for example!)

[turrhall]

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 15 March 2024 - 01:22 PM, said:

You seem a very angry individual. Peppering posts with profanities and getting personal. Very much like someone else who used to contribute, infact.

Either way you asked if Labour would scrap the Rwanda policy. The answer's an unequivical 'Yes'. You wanna twist and turn the links proving it into another sneer fest? Hide behind words like "implication" or "intents and purposes" rather than simply accept being wrong? Okay, be my guest. Just stop accusing me of saying the opposite of what's there in black and white. Especially when the Greens you might support really do advocate a "world without borders".

I couldn't care less who you do vote for. Cross the box of whoever you choose. Though it's beyond pious to trash those others endorse whilst endorsing no one yourself. Cowardly, even.

Besides, I'm sure there's a bloke dressed as a chicken or summat who'd still be loads better than the Reflux candidate...

I am not an angry person but politics in this country (world?) is something that makes me angry sometimes. Smug centrists like you who want to kowtow people into voting for a party that aren't going to benefit anyone but themselves don't help.

Your entire world view seems to be built on tone, and not content - are Labour going to literally stop the Rwanda policy? Sure, that's what they're saying at the moment. Are they suggesting they'll pull off the impossible and do a 'humane' version of the same thing? Apparently yes. IT'S THE SAME POLICY, IN A DIFFERENT COUNTRY. Why is it suddenly good when Labour propose it? That's not ignoring statements, that's holding a second idea in your head about what the alternative might be.

How you can't see the wood for the trees on this I genuinely don't know.

"Especially when the Greens you might support really do advocate a "world without borders"."

You keep saying this likes it's a bad thing.

"I couldn't care less who you do vote for. Cross the box of whoever you choose. Though it's beyond pious to trash those others endorse whilst endorsing no one yourself. Cowardly, even."

Sorry pal, you seem to really care who other people vote for, are you joking? And to accuse anyone else on this planet of being overly pious, beyond maybe the pope himself, is the height of irony I'm afraid.

Famously, the most cowardly thing you can do is stand up for what you believe in (?). Everyone believes that. Spoiling is as much part of the political process as voting - you don't like options in front of you? Opt out. You don't have to always vote for the lesser evil, if they are too 'evil' (I do not think the Labour Party currently are literally evil before you kick off about that).

Is Christian Wakeford a Tory? Why not? Why should I be forced to vote for him as the 'good' candidate in your dichotomy?

Notice you still haven't addressed the idea that Labour might need to appeal to voters to get votes, rather than shaming them into voting for them. You (correctly) and I both are not going to vote Tory right? Why? Because we don't like their policies or what they stand for. I feel the same about Starmer's Labour. That's the difference between us - well, one of them...

[isleaiw1]

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 15 March 2024 - 01:48 PM, said:

Yup, watch out for them 'reds under the bed', Ian.

Far more dangerous than a Truss who really did come within a multi-billion pound bale-out of busting the banks, the countless tories continuing to advocate her approach or the Mail-esque media and secretive Tufton Street lobby groups cheering them on...

And there you go trotting out an old event and ignoring the empirical research....

Of course Truss was right in one way, growth is the route to prosperity and trying to pay yourself more when productivity is down is the route to disaster. So I'll leave this here...


https://www.baringa....r-productivity/

Nationalisation is the cure to all problems hey?

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

turrhall, on 15 March 2024 - 02:05 PM, said:

I am not an angry person but politics in this country (world?) is something that makes me angry sometimes. Smug centrists like you who want to kowtow people into voting for a party that aren't going to benefit anyone but themselves don't help.

Your entire world view seems to be built on tone, and not content - are Labour going to literally stop the Rwanda policy? Sure, that's what they're saying at the moment. Are they suggesting they'll pull off the impossible and do a 'humane' version of the same thing? Apparently yes. IT'S THE SAME POLICY, IN A DIFFERENT COUNTRY. Why is it suddenly good when Labour propose it? That's not ignoring statements, that's holding a second idea in your head about what the alternative might be.

How you can't see the wood for the trees on this I genuinely don't know.

"Especially when the Greens you might support really do advocate a "world without borders"."

You keep saying this likes it's a bad thing.

"I couldn't care less who you do vote for. Cross the box of whoever you choose. Though it's beyond pious to trash those others endorse whilst endorsing no one yourself. Cowardly, even."

Sorry pal, you seem to really care who other people vote for, are you joking? And to accuse anyone else on this planet of being overly pious, beyond maybe the pope himself, is the height of irony I'm afraid.

Famously, the most cowardly thing you can do is stand up for what you believe in (?). Everyone believes that. Spoiling is as much part of the political process as voting - you don't like options in front of you? Opt out. You don't have to always vote for the lesser evil, if they are too 'evil' (I do not think the Labour Party currently are literally evil before you kick off about that).

Is Christian Wakeford a Tory? Why not? Why should I be forced to vote for him as the 'good' candidate in your dichotomy?

Notice you still haven't addressed the idea that Labour might need to appeal to voters to get votes, rather than shaming them into voting for them. You (correctly) and I both are not going to vote Tory right? Why? Because we don't like their policies or what they stand for. I feel the same about Starmer's Labour. That's the difference between us - well, one of them...

But in your own way you're parroting our friend Ian - only you quote conspiracies of Labour heading right where he quotes ones they'll head left.

Neither are really gonna happen.

And there's not as much as you think between us politically. I too endorsed Labour's manifesto at the last election, in the same way I'd like to see them/us be bolder now.

However I also understand it's about doing what you can, when you can. You and me could parade through Town singing the Red Flag and lambasting the tories every week, yet unless our views gain majority it's all just socialist masturbation.

Appeal to voters? Again, we have to realise the middle third holding sway in elections aren't idealistic. It's all about bread and butter stuff to them and, yeah, how parties present themselves. We can't on one hand trash Truss and her allies for all but breaking the country with 'Wild West' style economics whilst advocating summat similar in terms of, say, overnight re-nationalisation ourselves.

If it's "smug centrism" to compromise to achieve longer term goals - as New Labour delivered - then so be it.

Do you feel 'kowtowed' into voting one way or another? Does anyone on here? Mate - this is merely a minor adjunct to a lower league football forum. Frequented by maybe a couple of dozen at most. So don't take it too seriously.

For what it's worth I've become an advocate of PR. Okay, a few more loons in the House, but at least everyone's cross would count. No excuse for not voting at all then, either...

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

isleaiw1, on 15 March 2024 - 02:54 PM, said:

And there you go trotting out an old event and ignoring the empirical research....

Of course Truss was right in one way, growth is the route to prosperity and trying to pay yourself more when productivity is down is the route to disaster. So I'll leave this here...


https://www.baringa....r-productivity/

Nationalisation is the cure to all problems hey?

Ian - it was barely a year ago.

And you do realise you recently quoted stuff from far longer ago to somehow substantiate your lefty takeover conspiracies...don't you?

But don't bother repeating it - you'll 'look at manifestos' before deciding which way to vote. Leaving a choice between a tory party even you've admitted is institutionally corrupt, a Labour Party which you're convinced are about to undergo a union led coup (newsflash - it's already happened. Well over a hundred years ago...) and a Lib' Dem's who's only brush with power in a century saw them shred pretty much every promise made.

Looks like another vote for that bloke in the chicken suit, then...

[isleaiw1]

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 15 March 2024 - 04:34 PM, said:

Ian - it was barely a year ago.

And you do realise you recently quoted stuff from far longer ago to somehow substantiate your lefty takeover conspiracies...don't you?

But don't bother repeating it - you'll 'look at manifestos' before deciding which way to vote. Leaving a choice between a tory party even you've admitted is institutionally corrupt, a Labour Party which you're convinced are about to undergo a union led coup (newsflash - it's already happened. Well over a hundred years ago...) and a Lib' Dem's who's only brush with power in a century saw them shred pretty much every promise made.

Looks like another vote for that bloke in the chicken suit, then...

Well Rayners is live unless she has paid the tax but you said that was old so a year is a lifetime in politics...

If I think they are all sh1 t I will vote for the best local candidate - or maybe a tactical vote to send a signal to all of the main parties. I'd rather do that than vote Labour (whichever part of it is in power this election) because I always have.

But you are right that the only way to win is to appeal to the masses in the middle - and most of them wont vote for more left policies. We got there in the end, the country doesnt want leftist stuff...

[Search & Destroy]

Another example of Islamification

Kings Cross London

https://www.dailymai...ears-board.html

Just. 6% of the UK population remember (double by 2030)