Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Greatteamswinit4times- a terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Alisson Chains (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Greatteamswinit4times- a terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Naby8 (U6997)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Greatteamswinit4times- a terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Naby8 (U6997)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Greatteamswinit4times- a terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Paulpowersleftfoot (U1037)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by TTliv87 (U11882)
posted 1 minute ago
Canada-like deal. A blueprint already exists. Be much more demanding seeing as the cashcow of Europe is now heading for recession. May is not the leader for that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And neither is comrade corbyn
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And there is the shame of it. If Labour had a half competent leader then they'd be in power within a month.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They had a capable and intelligent leader in David Miliband. Unfortunately the party lurched to the left with Ed Miliband and when that didn't work they turned the unelectable up to 11 and went with Corbyn. It's almost comical.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The argument will always be that Labour are a left party, why shouldn't their leaders be left. I'm left but corbyns policies and beliefs aren't even an issue as such, the fact that he can't lead his party is the issue. He's been so weak the last 18 months.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are a left party but they're also a slightly idealistic party. Tory's are a lot more pragmatic, they're about what's electable, what brings power. They're a right wing party but they're not daft enough to put Rees-Mogg in charge of the party.
I do in some ways admire Labour for sticking to ideals but there's a price to pay and that is elect-ability.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But that's ok isn't it? Surely sticking to your principals is what politics should be about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are principles that most of the country disagrees with, hence they are nowhere near power.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again though, do they compromise that to get in power? If they want to go to the centre again, and have a Blair type figure then it's dangerous. Labour still hasn't recovered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends, there's a compromise to either position. Labour is a left wing party but that left has a spectrum in itself.
I'll use myself as an example, I consider myself to be center-left so for me, someone who won't vote Tory and has voted Labour many times, the party has moved away from me. There will be plenty like me as well, just as there are plenty to the more left wing of the spectrum.
I don't necessarily have an issue with the party following the ideals of it's supporters but I'd be amazed if Corbyn is an accurate reflection of the full range of Labour supporters. There are just too many center-left supporters. So for me the party is now catering to a specific portion of their voters and at the same time making a Tory government very likely. That's not a hugely palatable situation for me.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
The May Brussels deal was dead and is now buried!
We voted to leave and not for no deal, but we parliament and Brussels have messed this up, we leave on 29/3/19.
People voted to leave and mps are there to arrange how, not to thwart or ignore the peoples vote!!!I
If democracy is betrayed we remove trust in politics and po!iticians.
If remain want to,, they can campaign in the future to rejoin!
There is a managed leave, not no deal crashing off a cliff spin👍
comment by Greatteamswinit4times- a terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 7 minutes ago
I absolutely agree. But following the ideals of its supporters isn't what it's about. The supporters should be followers of the party due to its ideals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? I don't think it's been that way for generations. People shape parties and reflect society today. The people that help shape those policies are the supporters.
Corbyn would probably have been considered moderate 50-60 years ago, the idea of left wing has changed because the supporters of the party have changed. Not reflecting back your supporter base is a dangerous game imo.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Greatteamswinit4times- a terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 23 seconds ago
comment by Naby8 (U6997)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Greatteamswinit4times- a terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 7 minutes ago
I absolutely agree. But following the ideals of its supporters isn't what it's about. The supporters should be followers of the party due to its ideals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? I don't think it's been that way for generations. People shape parties and reflect society today. The people that help shape those policies are the supporters.
Corbyn would probably have been considered moderate 50-60 years ago, the idea of left wing has changed because the supporters of the party have changed. Not reflecting back your supporter base is a dangerous game imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure that the supporters are the cause of the shift in what is considered moderate and extreme to be honest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
More changes in society but the supporters will be reflection of that change.
Good chat anyway greatteams.
Labour (well, Corbyn) hasn’t stuck to his principles at all.
I do agree the window has shifted right a lot though.
On this whole “but Scotland is a country” malarkey.
Legally define a country:
Autonomous state by virtue of Government and President
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the country. Not England; not Scotland (though they once were and may well be one day in the future).
The moment Scotland voted against devolution, it continued to be legally held as a singular, holistic country along with England, Wales, and N. Ireland.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
This is leave, not no deal!
May and Brussels tried to see us a pup as that deal was paying for the ability to have no say....why bother when we can leave and save forty billion for starters?
Being talked to by unelected little Brussels Hitler's may be ok to some, but not most of the uk, leave or remain.
comment by rooney_hernandez (U7012)
posted 20 hours, 33 minutes ago
On this whole “but Scotland is a country” malarkey.
Legally define a country:
Autonomous state by virtue of Government and President
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the country. Not England; not Scotland (though they once were and may well be one day in the future).
The moment Scotland voted against devolution, it continued to be legally held as a singular, holistic country along with England, Wales, and N. Ireland.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When did Scotland vote against devolution?
Sign in if you want to comment
NO DEAL
Page 2 of 2
posted on 15/1/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 15/1/19
comment by Greatteamswinit4times- a terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Alisson Chains (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Greatteamswinit4times- a terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Naby8 (U6997)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Greatteamswinit4times- a terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Naby8 (U6997)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Greatteamswinit4times- a terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Paulpowersleftfoot (U1037)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by TTliv87 (U11882)
posted 1 minute ago
Canada-like deal. A blueprint already exists. Be much more demanding seeing as the cashcow of Europe is now heading for recession. May is not the leader for that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And neither is comrade corbyn
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And there is the shame of it. If Labour had a half competent leader then they'd be in power within a month.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They had a capable and intelligent leader in David Miliband. Unfortunately the party lurched to the left with Ed Miliband and when that didn't work they turned the unelectable up to 11 and went with Corbyn. It's almost comical.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The argument will always be that Labour are a left party, why shouldn't their leaders be left. I'm left but corbyns policies and beliefs aren't even an issue as such, the fact that he can't lead his party is the issue. He's been so weak the last 18 months.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are a left party but they're also a slightly idealistic party. Tory's are a lot more pragmatic, they're about what's electable, what brings power. They're a right wing party but they're not daft enough to put Rees-Mogg in charge of the party.
I do in some ways admire Labour for sticking to ideals but there's a price to pay and that is elect-ability.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But that's ok isn't it? Surely sticking to your principals is what politics should be about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are principles that most of the country disagrees with, hence they are nowhere near power.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again though, do they compromise that to get in power? If they want to go to the centre again, and have a Blair type figure then it's dangerous. Labour still hasn't recovered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends, there's a compromise to either position. Labour is a left wing party but that left has a spectrum in itself.
I'll use myself as an example, I consider myself to be center-left so for me, someone who won't vote Tory and has voted Labour many times, the party has moved away from me. There will be plenty like me as well, just as there are plenty to the more left wing of the spectrum.
I don't necessarily have an issue with the party following the ideals of it's supporters but I'd be amazed if Corbyn is an accurate reflection of the full range of Labour supporters. There are just too many center-left supporters. So for me the party is now catering to a specific portion of their voters and at the same time making a Tory government very likely. That's not a hugely palatable situation for me.
posted on 15/1/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 15/1/19
The May Brussels deal was dead and is now buried!
We voted to leave and not for no deal, but we parliament and Brussels have messed this up, we leave on 29/3/19.
People voted to leave and mps are there to arrange how, not to thwart or ignore the peoples vote!!!I
If democracy is betrayed we remove trust in politics and po!iticians.
If remain want to,, they can campaign in the future to rejoin!
There is a managed leave, not no deal crashing off a cliff spin👍
posted on 15/1/19
comment by Greatteamswinit4times- a terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 7 minutes ago
I absolutely agree. But following the ideals of its supporters isn't what it's about. The supporters should be followers of the party due to its ideals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? I don't think it's been that way for generations. People shape parties and reflect society today. The people that help shape those policies are the supporters.
Corbyn would probably have been considered moderate 50-60 years ago, the idea of left wing has changed because the supporters of the party have changed. Not reflecting back your supporter base is a dangerous game imo.
posted on 15/1/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 15/1/19
comment by Greatteamswinit4times- a terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 23 seconds ago
comment by Naby8 (U6997)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Greatteamswinit4times- a terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 7 minutes ago
I absolutely agree. But following the ideals of its supporters isn't what it's about. The supporters should be followers of the party due to its ideals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? I don't think it's been that way for generations. People shape parties and reflect society today. The people that help shape those policies are the supporters.
Corbyn would probably have been considered moderate 50-60 years ago, the idea of left wing has changed because the supporters of the party have changed. Not reflecting back your supporter base is a dangerous game imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure that the supporters are the cause of the shift in what is considered moderate and extreme to be honest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
More changes in society but the supporters will be reflection of that change.
Good chat anyway greatteams.
posted on 15/1/19
Labour (well, Corbyn) hasn’t stuck to his principles at all.
I do agree the window has shifted right a lot though.
posted on 15/1/19
On this whole “but Scotland is a country” malarkey.
Legally define a country:
Autonomous state by virtue of Government and President
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the country. Not England; not Scotland (though they once were and may well be one day in the future).
The moment Scotland voted against devolution, it continued to be legally held as a singular, holistic country along with England, Wales, and N. Ireland.
posted on 15/1/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 16/1/19
This is leave, not no deal!
May and Brussels tried to see us a pup as that deal was paying for the ability to have no say....why bother when we can leave and save forty billion for starters?
Being talked to by unelected little Brussels Hitler's may be ok to some, but not most of the uk, leave or remain.
posted on 16/1/19
comment by rooney_hernandez (U7012)
posted 20 hours, 33 minutes ago
On this whole “but Scotland is a country” malarkey.
Legally define a country:
Autonomous state by virtue of Government and President
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the country. Not England; not Scotland (though they once were and may well be one day in the future).
The moment Scotland voted against devolution, it continued to be legally held as a singular, holistic country along with England, Wales, and N. Ireland.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When did Scotland vote against devolution?
Page 2 of 2