The Politics Thread

If you have a life outside of BWFC, then this is the place to tell us all about your toilet habits, and those bizarre fetishes.......

Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em

Post Reply

Who will you be voting for?

Labour
12
40%
Conservatives
11
37%
Liberal Democrats
2
7%
UK Independence Party (UKIP)
0
No votes
Green Party
3
10%
Plaid Cymru
0
No votes
Other
1
3%
Planet Hobo
1
3%
 
Total votes: 30

Hoboh
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 12881
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Hoboh » Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:05 pm

Bruce Rioja wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:53 pm
Get a load of this c*nt. :lol: :lol: :lol:

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-st ... -1-6514898
Well, I suppose a little reciprocation of making some Dutch sh*ts wait at all UK airports would not go amiss.

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 26174
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by BWFC_Insane » Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:30 pm

Bruce Rioja wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:53 pm
Get a load of this c*nt. :lol: :lol: :lol:

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-st ... -1-6514898
I agree with the sentiment...but it turns out the delays were down to staff training and nothing to do with Brexit or being in the schengen queue, which he wasn’t, as that will happen in January.

Hoboh
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 12881
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Hoboh » Mon Feb 17, 2020 4:43 pm

Oh dear :hang: It seems nerdy Nandy was not up to scratch to be leader, apparently she has decided the handful of not sure if they are boys or girls are her target to get labour elected! Never mind the majority of voters eh Lisa?

Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 23480
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Worthy4England » Mon Feb 17, 2020 5:07 pm

Hoboh wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 4:43 pm
Oh dear :hang: It seems nerdy Nandy was not up to scratch to be leader, apparently she has decided the handful of not sure if they are boys or girls are her target to get labour elected! Never mind the majority of voters eh Lisa?
What are you rabbiting about Hobes?

Hoboh
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 12881
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Hoboh » Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:43 pm

Worthy4England wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 5:07 pm
Hoboh wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 4:43 pm
Oh dear :hang: It seems nerdy Nandy was not up to scratch to be leader, apparently she has decided the handful of not sure if they are boys or girls are her target to get labour elected! Never mind the majority of voters eh Lisa?
What are you rabbiting about Hobes?
Lisa Nandy reignited Labour's trans rights row today after saying violent male offenders including child rapists should have the right to serve their sentence in female-only prisons if they transition.

The Wigan MP became the latest Labour leadership contender to become embroiled in a row that has cause a bitter women's rights schism within the party.

At a campaign rally she was asked her views on whether violent male sexual offenders who transition should be allowed to serve their sentence in a jail assigned to prisoners of their new gender.

Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 23480
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Worthy4England » Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:32 pm

Isn't there already a Gender Recognition Act in legal force which I think covers matters such as boys who are girls and girls who are boys. Has been in place for pushing 20 years. What's new?

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 26174
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by BWFC_Insane » Tue Feb 18, 2020 8:36 am

Hoboh wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:43 pm
Worthy4England wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 5:07 pm
Hoboh wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 4:43 pm
Oh dear :hang: It seems nerdy Nandy was not up to scratch to be leader, apparently she has decided the handful of not sure if they are boys or girls are her target to get labour elected! Never mind the majority of voters eh Lisa?
What are you rabbiting about Hobes?
Lisa Nandy reignited Labour's trans rights row today after saying violent male offenders including child rapists should have the right to serve their sentence in female-only prisons if they transition.

The Wigan MP became the latest Labour leadership contender to become embroiled in a row that has cause a bitter women's rights schism within the party.

At a campaign rally she was asked her views on whether violent male sexual offenders who transition should be allowed to serve their sentence in a jail assigned to prisoners of their new gender.
That's a ridiculous story of nonsense. She believes people should be able to self-define gender. But stated clearly that offenders such as people who had abused women wouldn't be allowed into a female prison regardless.

Its a complete non story - I'm not even a Nandy fan but at least try and find something that isn't complete nonsense to report on.

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 26174
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by BWFC_Insane » Tue Feb 18, 2020 8:39 am

Worthy4England wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:32 pm
Isn't there already a Gender Recognition Act in legal force which I think covers matters such as boys who are girls and girls who are boys. Has been in place for pushing 20 years. What's new?
Rebecca Long Bailey and Lisa Nandy have signed pledges supporting self-definition. In effect if you're transitioning you can decide if you want to be treated as a man or a woman. This has caused controversy because for example it opens the possibility up for someone in transitioning being in a women's refuge where there are for example women escaping domestic violence at the hand's of men...and that's a complex can of worms.

Both have said its a complex issue and they want to support both women and trans people - its entirely possible to do so of course and really the pledge is a bit silly - they've done it because they need the support of that community within the Labour party.

Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 23480
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Worthy4England » Tue Feb 18, 2020 11:35 am

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 8:39 am
Worthy4England wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:32 pm
Isn't there already a Gender Recognition Act in legal force which I think covers matters such as boys who are girls and girls who are boys. Has been in place for pushing 20 years. What's new?
Rebecca Long Bailey and Lisa Nandy have signed pledges supporting self-definition. In effect if you're transitioning you can decide if you want to be treated as a man or a woman. This has caused controversy because for example it opens the possibility up for someone in transitioning being in a women's refuge where there are for example women escaping domestic violence at the hand's of men...and that's a complex can of worms.

Both have said its a complex issue and they want to support both women and trans people - its entirely possible to do so of course and really the pledge is a bit silly - they've done it because they need the support of that community within the Labour party.
It all felt a bit storm and teacup. I watched last night's debate and I couldn't see a surefire winner amongst the three of them. To me Long Bailey would translate as long time in opposition, she tries to be too clever by half whilst pretty much acknowledging that she was the architect of the manifesto no one could understand. Not for me, from the three of them. And the notion that we shouldn't be afraid of "Socialist Policies" (even then no bugger could understand them) just exacerbated that for me.

I thought Nandy did ok, generally, but I still had her second to Starmer. Although there wasn't as much in it as I might have thought prior to listening to them.

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 26174
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by BWFC_Insane » Tue Feb 18, 2020 11:55 am

Worthy4England wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 11:35 am
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 8:39 am
Worthy4England wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:32 pm
Isn't there already a Gender Recognition Act in legal force which I think covers matters such as boys who are girls and girls who are boys. Has been in place for pushing 20 years. What's new?
Rebecca Long Bailey and Lisa Nandy have signed pledges supporting self-definition. In effect if you're transitioning you can decide if you want to be treated as a man or a woman. This has caused controversy because for example it opens the possibility up for someone in transitioning being in a women's refuge where there are for example women escaping domestic violence at the hand's of men...and that's a complex can of worms.

Both have said its a complex issue and they want to support both women and trans people - its entirely possible to do so of course and really the pledge is a bit silly - they've done it because they need the support of that community within the Labour party.
It all felt a bit storm and teacup. I watched last night's debate and I couldn't see a surefire winner amongst the three of them. To me Long Bailey would translate as long time in opposition, she tries to be too clever by half whilst pretty much acknowledging that she was the architect of the manifesto no one could understand. Not for me, from the three of them. And the notion that we shouldn't be afraid of "Socialist Policies" (even then no bugger could understand them) just exacerbated that for me.

I thought Nandy did ok, generally, but I still had her second to Starmer. Although there wasn't as much in it as I might have thought prior to listening to them.
Way I see it is thus:

Rebecca Long Bailey is utterly hopeless. Clueless. Out of touch with reality. It was telling for me when asked to name the best Labour leader in the last 50 years she couldn't do so. And why was obvious. She didn't know any - beyond Corbyn which was the trap or Blair who she daren't mention - she couldn't name one. "I've written the policies" - yes and what a success they were!

Nandy - she is good in front of the camera - for sure. She says the right stuff. And knows what to say and when. But I don't think she's ready. Relying on "in my constituency in Wigan" does not inspire - and whilst I absolutely think she'd speak well to some Northern seats I think she'd lose huge swathes of Labour supporters elsewhere - like the Lib Dem voting guy in the audience. I also think she's desperately short of real ideas - its all good intentions over substance. Saying what people want to hear and easy "party has lost its way" observations over what she'd actually do. However, its experience that she needs and she should return to cabinet hopefully.

Starmer - I think has the most substance and credibility and understanding of the 3. Presentation-ally I was a bit disappointed. All a bit too "considered". He's a lawyer sure, but the public want quick slogans and easy to understand positions - you can't spend 4 years qualifying everything. A simple "I believe this and this is how it is" sometimes is needed. The only time he did this was Anti-Semitism where he destroyed the competition with a simple message - AS has no place in Labour - I'll take personal responsibility as leader and want to see all cases. Simple effective and clearly those concerned in the audience only really bought his answer. I get he's trying to win and playing a game - but more like that answer and less like "well its a bit of this and that but really we must also consider X and throw in Y and then have a big debate".

So for me it has to be Starmer but IF he wins he needs to improve how he communicates. Simple and concise. Not lengthy and considered. As sad as it is to say lengthy and considered doesn't go down well.

User avatar
TANGODANCER
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 38534
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Lost between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light a penny candle from a star.

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by TANGODANCER » Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:36 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 8:39 am
Worthy4England wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:32 pm
Isn't there already a Gender Recognition Act in legal force which I think covers matters such as boys who are girls and girls who are boys. Has been in place for pushing 20 years. What's new?
Rebecca Long Bailey and Lisa Nandy have signed pledges supporting self-definition. In effect if you're transitioning you can decide if you want to be treated as a man or a woman. This has caused controversy because for example it opens the possibility up for someone in transitioning being in a women's refuge where there are for example women escaping domestic violence at the hand's of men...and that's a complex can of worms.

Both have said its a complex issue and they want to support both women and trans people - its entirely possible to do so of course and really the pledge is a bit silly - they've done it because they need the support of that community within the Labour party.
And then there's God of course. And if you're going to claim religion doesn't count in all this, what exactly is Semitism all about? Just asking?
The wisest and the best of men, nay, the wisest and best of their actions, may be rendered ridiculous by a person whose first object in life is a joke...Darcy. Pride and Prejudice.

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 26174
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by BWFC_Insane » Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:40 pm

TANGODANCER wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:36 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 8:39 am
Worthy4England wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:32 pm
Isn't there already a Gender Recognition Act in legal force which I think covers matters such as boys who are girls and girls who are boys. Has been in place for pushing 20 years. What's new?
Rebecca Long Bailey and Lisa Nandy have signed pledges supporting self-definition. In effect if you're transitioning you can decide if you want to be treated as a man or a woman. This has caused controversy because for example it opens the possibility up for someone in transitioning being in a women's refuge where there are for example women escaping domestic violence at the hand's of men...and that's a complex can of worms.

Both have said its a complex issue and they want to support both women and trans people - its entirely possible to do so of course and really the pledge is a bit silly - they've done it because they need the support of that community within the Labour party.
And then there's God of course. And if you're going to claim religion doesn't count in all this, what exactly is Semitism all about? Just asking?
Its about not persecuting someone because of their race, religion or ethnicity. The same sentiments stand for any characteristic, including gender etc...

Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 23480
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Worthy4England » Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:57 pm

I think the underlying assertion here is that something called God, determines gender based on whether you have nuts and a willy or whether you don't. But God also created how an individual views their own sexuality (if you believe in such stuff). So we appear to have a bit of a God dilemma, do we take the physical image, said being is supposed to have created? or do we take the mindset of an individual that God is also supposed to have created - which one trumps the other?

Also apparently this dude created both in his own image which would, I'm sure mean that he was a bit of both himself. If you prefer the other narrative that he created man in his own image and from a spare rib then created woman, then woman came from man and must've been trans...

What a minefield.

User avatar
Montreal Wanderer
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 12722
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:45 am
Location: Montreal, Canada

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Montreal Wanderer » Tue Feb 18, 2020 2:41 pm

Worthy4England wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:57 pm
I think the underlying assertion here is that something called God, determines gender based on whether you have nuts and a willy or whether you don't. But God also created how an individual views their own sexuality (if you believe in such stuff). So we appear to have a bit of a God dilemma, do we take the physical image, said being is supposed to have created? or do we take the mindset of an individual that God is also supposed to have created - which one trumps the other?

Also apparently this dude created both in his own image which would, I'm sure mean that he was a bit of both himself. If you prefer the other narrative that he created man in his own image and from a spare rib then created woman, then woman came from man and must've been trans...

What a minefield.

If one happens to be standing near Worthy I'd watch out for lightning bolts.....
"If you cannot answer a man's argument, all it not lost; you can still call him vile names. " Elbert Hubbard.

Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 23480
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Worthy4England » Tue Feb 18, 2020 3:14 pm

Montreal Wanderer wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 2:41 pm
Worthy4England wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:57 pm
I think the underlying assertion here is that something called God, determines gender based on whether you have nuts and a willy or whether you don't. But God also created how an individual views their own sexuality (if you believe in such stuff). So we appear to have a bit of a God dilemma, do we take the physical image, said being is supposed to have created? or do we take the mindset of an individual that God is also supposed to have created - which one trumps the other?

Also apparently this dude created both in his own image which would, I'm sure mean that he was a bit of both himself. If you prefer the other narrative that he created man in his own image and from a spare rib then created woman, then woman came from man and must've been trans...

What a minefield.

If one happens to be standing near Worthy I'd watch out for lightning bolts.....
I would of course always look to separate any belief from the tall tales that have been written about it after the fact! :D

Hoboh
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 12881
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Hoboh » Tue Feb 18, 2020 5:27 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 8:39 am
Worthy4England wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:32 pm
Isn't there already a Gender Recognition Act in legal force which I think covers matters such as boys who are girls and girls who are boys. Has been in place for pushing 20 years. What's new?
Rebecca Long Bailey and Lisa Nandy have signed pledges supporting self-definition. In effect if you're transitioning you can decide if you want to be treated as a man or a woman. This has caused controversy because for example it opens the possibility up for someone in transitioning being in a women's refuge where there are for example women escaping domestic violence at the hand's of men...and that's a complex can of worms.

Both have said its a complex issue and they want to support both women and trans people - its entirely possible to do so of course and really the pledge is a bit silly - they've done it because they need the support of that community within the Labour party.
Oi You I thought Namby didn't say anything about that and it was all fake news!!!!

malcd1
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 3555
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 5:33 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by malcd1 » Tue Feb 18, 2020 7:22 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 11:55 am
Worthy4England wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 11:35 am
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 8:39 am
Worthy4England wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:32 pm
Isn't there already a Gender Recognition Act in legal force which I think covers matters such as boys who are girls and girls who are boys. Has been in place for pushing 20 years. What's new?
Rebecca Long Bailey and Lisa Nandy have signed pledges supporting self-definition. In effect if you're transitioning you can decide if you want to be treated as a man or a woman. This has caused controversy because for example it opens the possibility up for someone in transitioning being in a women's refuge where there are for example women escaping domestic violence at the hand's of men...and that's a complex can of worms.

Both have said its a complex issue and they want to support both women and trans people - its entirely possible to do so of course and really the pledge is a bit silly - they've done it because they need the support of that community within the Labour party.
It all felt a bit storm and teacup. I watched last night's debate and I couldn't see a surefire winner amongst the three of them. To me Long Bailey would translate as long time in opposition, she tries to be too clever by half whilst pretty much acknowledging that she was the architect of the manifesto no one could understand. Not for me, from the three of them. And the notion that we shouldn't be afraid of "Socialist Policies" (even then no bugger could understand them) just exacerbated that for me.

I thought Nandy did ok, generally, but I still had her second to Starmer. Although there wasn't as much in it as I might have thought prior to listening to them.
Way I see it is thus:

Rebecca Long Bailey is utterly hopeless. Clueless. Out of touch with reality. It was telling for me when asked to name the best Labour leader in the last 50 years she couldn't do so. And why was obvious. She didn't know any - beyond Corbyn which was the trap or Blair who she daren't mention - she couldn't name one. "I've written the policies" - yes and what a success they were!

Nandy - she is good in front of the camera - for sure. She says the right stuff. And knows what to say and when. But I don't think she's ready. Relying on "in my constituency in Wigan" does not inspire - and whilst I absolutely think she'd speak well to some Northern seats I think she'd lose huge swathes of Labour supporters elsewhere - like the Lib Dem voting guy in the audience. I also think she's desperately short of real ideas - its all good intentions over substance. Saying what people want to hear and easy "party has lost its way" observations over what she'd actually do. However, its experience that she needs and she should return to cabinet hopefully.

Starmer - I think has the most substance and credibility and understanding of the 3. Presentation-ally I was a bit disappointed. All a bit too "considered". He's a lawyer sure, but the public want quick slogans and easy to understand positions - you can't spend 4 years qualifying everything. A simple "I believe this and this is how it is" sometimes is needed. The only time he did this was Anti-Semitism where he destroyed the competition with a simple message - AS has no place in Labour - I'll take personal responsibility as leader and want to see all cases. Simple effective and clearly those concerned in the audience only really bought his answer. I get he's trying to win and playing a game - but more like that answer and less like "well its a bit of this and that but really we must also consider X and throw in Y and then have a big debate".

So for me it has to be Starmer but IF he wins he needs to improve how he communicates. Simple and concise. Not lengthy and considered. As sad as it is to say lengthy and considered doesn't go down well.

Starmer was the Labour Brexit guy. He has reiterated it was the correct policy to sit on the fence. He was pretty clear he thought we should stay in but not Labour's policy? I personally think he is too measured and quite wooden for an ex-lawyer. He doesn't do it for me.
Do not trust atoms. They make up everything.

Hoboh
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 12881
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Hoboh » Tue Feb 18, 2020 9:07 pm

We asked you to tell us what you think about the idea of Britons having continued freedom of movement in Europe

‘I wholeheartedly endorse this idea’
I wholeheartedly endorse this idea and would be prepared to pay a reasonable fee to continue to retain my freedom of movement throughout the EU. Revoking my EU citizenship as a result of Brexit is an unfair curtailment of my rights. John Catron, 65, education consultant, York

‘This is the chink of light I’ve been looking for’
I am all for it. Losing freedom of movement is one of the most gutting things about Brexit. I’ve been trying desperately to find a sliver of Irish ancestry to get an Irish passport in order keep my freedom of movement. I’ve not had much luck unfortunately. Added to that, my boyfriend is Irish so if we do decide to move to Europe, it’s highly likely that will hold us back. Also, it’s a shame that UK students could be studying alongside European students and not have the same post-degree work opportunities. Everything about Brexit is incredibly depressing, this is the chink of light I’ve been looking for. Henrietta Rowlatt, 40, radio producer, Manchester

‘I think it’s essential to continue European integration and mix cultures’
I would be ecstatic to have it as I will be devastated to lose it when the transition period ends. I think it is essential to continue European integration and mix cultures to end racial division and promote unity, as well as offering chances to live study and travel across Europe. I think it’s important to create a solitary European entity, abandoning tiny borders and worn out traditions from the past and bringing everyone under one common modern item – being European. Jake Cocksedge, 20, student, Wimbotsham, Norfolk

‘I’m all in favour’
I’m all in favour. I’ve lived and worked in Spain since 1991 and was fortunately able to vote in June 2016, due to having worked a couple of months in the UK in 2008. Many of my friends here were denied a vote by the 15-year rule. How is it fair or democratic that they should be denied freedom of movement because of an election they couldn’t even participate in? My Spanish partner and I enjoy travelling a lot and it is going to be just ridiculous for us to have to pass through different passport controls. The fact that she can continue to live anywhere she wants in the EU, while I can’t due to something I bitterly oppose is stupid. Paul Giblin, 55, working in Madrid

‘Any small actions we can take to redress the balance of Brits in Europe and Europeans in the UK not being able to vote, would be welcome’
As someone who voted to join Europe all those years ago and also voted to remain in the recent, extremely ill-advised referendum, I’m all for maintaining whatever links we can with Europe whilst we continue to to try and extricate ourselves from the current, populist, political mess for which we are solely responsible. I seem to remember thinking at the time that, however shameful the debate leading up to the referendum was, the fact that so many of the Brits living/working in Europe and all of the Europeans living /working in the UK were excluded from voting was even more shameful – so any small actions we can take to redress the balance would be welcome. Iain Buchanan, 70+, retired, Edinburgh

‘I want my children to have the same access I enjoyed growing up’
This would perhaps go some way towards appeasing people who voted remain. I will never understand nor condone leaving the EU, but if I could have the option to apply for associate citizenship and maintain at least some of the benefits of EU membership then I would feel less as if something had been stolen from me. It would be optional, so people in favour of a hard Brexit will not be ‘forced’ to be part of the EU, but equally I won’t be ‘forced’ to be entirely disassociated from something I wish we could stay a part of. I want my children to have the same access that I enjoyed growing up. Bethany Woodcock, 31, stay at home mum, Kent

‘We always had conviction that the people of Europe would be kinder to us than our country of birth’
It is a wonderful idea! We British in Europe now find ourselves exiled and effectively without statehood thanks to Brexit. We always had conviction that the people of Europe would be kinder to us than our country of birth. The Europeans have been universally kind to us over the past three years, expressing fear and sympathy for us in our situation. Hilary Kirkby, 74, retired, France

‘People like me were born EU citizens and it feels unfair to just lose our rights overnight’
I think it’s a great idea. Forty eight per cent voted to remain in the EU and keep their freedom of movement rights. If the EU offered associated citizenship it would allow those who wish to keep the rights to do so. People like me were born EU citizens and it feels unfair to just lose our rights overnight. Edward Thomas, 24, unemployed, Crewe

‘Maintaining close links with Europe is an essential bond to so many of us’
I always valued our links with other European countries and am devastated that Britain is no longer a contributing member of this economic and cultural union. I would love to be able to retain my European citizenship. I desperately hope that some arrangement can be made to achieve this. So many of us did not vote to rip ourselves out of the EU and think that the UK government is making a very damaging mistake. Maintaining close links with Europe is an essential bond to so many of us. We feel no one is listening to us in this country, so thank you Sadiq Khan and Guy Verhofstadt. Liz Jones, retired teacher, Wales
The Guardian Readers

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Still crying!

User avatar
TANGODANCER
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 38534
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Lost between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light a penny candle from a star.

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by TANGODANCER » Tue Feb 18, 2020 10:22 pm

Just watched Lucy Worsley put forwards the theory (with a smile of course) that the whole Brexit thing began way back with Henry VIII. Considering the savages who ran the country. and the no better running of Rome and the Church back then, it has to be hoped a few lessons have been learned ....hopefully. A session of Parliament in action tends to inspire little confidence, as yet....
The wisest and the best of men, nay, the wisest and best of their actions, may be rendered ridiculous by a person whose first object in life is a joke...Darcy. Pride and Prejudice.

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 26174
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by BWFC_Insane » Tue Feb 18, 2020 10:35 pm

malcd1 wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 7:22 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 11:55 am
Worthy4England wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 11:35 am
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 8:39 am
Worthy4England wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:32 pm
Isn't there already a Gender Recognition Act in legal force which I think covers matters such as boys who are girls and girls who are boys. Has been in place for pushing 20 years. What's new?
Rebecca Long Bailey and Lisa Nandy have signed pledges supporting self-definition. In effect if you're transitioning you can decide if you want to be treated as a man or a woman. This has caused controversy because for example it opens the possibility up for someone in transitioning being in a women's refuge where there are for example women escaping domestic violence at the hand's of men...and that's a complex can of worms.

Both have said its a complex issue and they want to support both women and trans people - its entirely possible to do so of course and really the pledge is a bit silly - they've done it because they need the support of that community within the Labour party.
It all felt a bit storm and teacup. I watched last night's debate and I couldn't see a surefire winner amongst the three of them. To me Long Bailey would translate as long time in opposition, she tries to be too clever by half whilst pretty much acknowledging that she was the architect of the manifesto no one could understand. Not for me, from the three of them. And the notion that we shouldn't be afraid of "Socialist Policies" (even then no bugger could understand them) just exacerbated that for me.

I thought Nandy did ok, generally, but I still had her second to Starmer. Although there wasn't as much in it as I might have thought prior to listening to them.
Way I see it is thus:

Rebecca Long Bailey is utterly hopeless. Clueless. Out of touch with reality. It was telling for me when asked to name the best Labour leader in the last 50 years she couldn't do so. And why was obvious. She didn't know any - beyond Corbyn which was the trap or Blair who she daren't mention - she couldn't name one. "I've written the policies" - yes and what a success they were!

Nandy - she is good in front of the camera - for sure. She says the right stuff. And knows what to say and when. But I don't think she's ready. Relying on "in my constituency in Wigan" does not inspire - and whilst I absolutely think she'd speak well to some Northern seats I think she'd lose huge swathes of Labour supporters elsewhere - like the Lib Dem voting guy in the audience. I also think she's desperately short of real ideas - its all good intentions over substance. Saying what people want to hear and easy "party has lost its way" observations over what she'd actually do. However, its experience that she needs and she should return to cabinet hopefully.

Starmer - I think has the most substance and credibility and understanding of the 3. Presentation-ally I was a bit disappointed. All a bit too "considered". He's a lawyer sure, but the public want quick slogans and easy to understand positions - you can't spend 4 years qualifying everything. A simple "I believe this and this is how it is" sometimes is needed. The only time he did this was Anti-Semitism where he destroyed the competition with a simple message - AS has no place in Labour - I'll take personal responsibility as leader and want to see all cases. Simple effective and clearly those concerned in the audience only really bought his answer. I get he's trying to win and playing a game - but more like that answer and less like "well its a bit of this and that but really we must also consider X and throw in Y and then have a big debate".

So for me it has to be Starmer but IF he wins he needs to improve how he communicates. Simple and concise. Not lengthy and considered. As sad as it is to say lengthy and considered doesn't go down well.

Starmer was the Labour Brexit guy. He has reiterated it was the correct policy to sit on the fence. He was pretty clear he thought we should stay in but not Labour's policy? I personally think he is too measured and quite wooden for an ex-lawyer. He doesn't do it for me.
He was a remainer. Labour lost more votes to remain parties than leave ones. So his assertion is probably correct. Labour would likely have lost even more horribly if they’d been pro Brexit outright.

I think his comms style needs work. But he’s got actual substance and a suitable track record, and I think is the only one who could credibly unite the party.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests