Snap General Election Called

[BacktoDemocracy]

8 hours ago, Sunset said:

No dead cat just a light hearted return, obviously swooshed over your ever so down the middle head. I read this morning junior doctors will be doing the rounds at surgeries soon is this because fully qualified doctors can't cope with patient demand or is it that they could do it if they had more pay?

First , the govt relied on overseas doctors so as to not pay for training and under invested in training home grown doctors and then thought that once they had the doctors there was no where else for them  to go and started to screw them on pay and conditions, but hey ho, the doctors do have other options and are going elsewhere, so just like cutting the police force the Tories  arrogance is coming round to bite their b**ls off.

[Gbye grey sky]

2 hours ago, simmo said:

you gotta laugh at Corbyn

1979-Callaghan 269 seats, resigned.

1992-Kinnock 271 seats, resigned.

2017-Corbyn 262 seats, claims victory & orders the winner to resign

In both 1979 and 1992 Labour finished over 7 points behind the Tories.  In 2017 Labour started the campaign more than 20 points behind and ended up just 2 points behind.  Against a background of a concerted and vitriolic campaign by the Tories and their media friends.

[Guest]

On 6/13/2017 at 17:16, snifter said:

 Having a mod moment here 

There was a topic somewhere. Might be worth attempting to discuss it rather than going off at a tangent. 

And back to you  *cue the topic again*

 

 

Let's try this again.

There was a topic being discussed. 

[simmo]

Tim farron quits.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/tim-farron-choose-christianity-leading-lib-dems/

 

[Guest]

OK, as you cannot seem to adhere to a simple request to get back to topic, I've split out about 3 pages of IRA discussion from various members and have put it in its own thread where you can discuss to your hearts content. 
 

You can find it here 

 

Do not carry this topic on here in this thread please. This is to discuss the UK election and while I appreciate off topic happens, derailing a thread as had been done is not on. 
 

Also please ensure you don't get into personal insults and petty arguments. Those will be removed and infractions follow. 

Thanks in advance

snifter

 

BACK TO TOPIC HERE 

[simmo]

on a lighter note..

 

[BacktoDemocracy]

1 hour ago, simmo said:

Tim farron quits.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/tim-farron-choose-christianity-leading-lib-dems/

 

Once again the attention grabbing headline does not reflect what Farron actually said, he tried to be honest and admitted his errors of presentation but his real issue was about how illiberal, liberal with a small l, society was and how his Christianity stood in the way of people hearing the Liberals, Liberal with a big L, message.

[simmo]

5 minutes ago, BacktoDemocracy said:

Once again the attention grabbing headline does not reflect what Farron actually said, he tried to be honest and admitted his errors of presentation but his real issue was about how illiberal, liberal with a small l, society was and how his Christianity stood in the way of people hearing the Liberals, Liberal with a big L, message.

so he didn't quit?

[amibovered]

4 hours ago, simmo said:

Tim farron quits.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/tim-farron-choose-christianity-leading-lib-dems/

 

Good, I want politicians decisions informed by science, reason and consensus, not by the teachings of an ancient book.

Edited June 15, 2017 by amibovered

[Collie]

2 hours ago, amibovered said:

Good, I want politicians decisions informed by science, reason and consensus, not by the teachings of an ancient book.

Good to see we agree on something 

You should check out how the DUP are guided in their decisions, God fearing is putting it mildly

[Parley]

On 15/06/2017 at 20:01, amibovered said:

Good, I want politicians decisions informed by science, reason and consensus, not by the teachings of an ancient book.

It is a democracy though and as long as the DUP put up its policies prior to the election then there is no problem.

Obviously a lot of people did vote for them and agree with their policies.

[Collie]

A biblical take 

 

An Irishman’s Diary – A Reading from the Book of Brexodus

The children of Disraeli's path out of EUgypt has been beset by a fearsome tribe known as the Corbynites

about 13 hours ago

Frank McNally 

 

 Share to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to Email App

A reading from the Book of Brexodus. Now the children of Disraeli dwelt in the land of EUgypt, and they were the chosen people. But the King of EUgypt feared them and said to his followers: behold how the Disraeli-ites multiply and are fruitful.

Let us deal harshly with them, lest they wax mighty and rise against us.  

So the EUguptians made slaves of the Disraeli-ites, causing them to construct bricks without straw and to make non-bending bananas, and yea, even to eat swine in their sausages, or else label them as containing non-specific meat-free content. And the Disraeli-ites were sore afflicted.

Then there rose among them a great leader, who was called in Hebrew “Moses”, or in the tongue of the people, “Mrs May”. And she said unto the Disraeli-ites: follow me, for I shall lead ye out of EUgypt and bring ye to the promised land where floweth milk and honey, without quota.

And they were again the chosen people. But they were not chosen by quite enough, for the promised land had not been fully costed in the manifesto. So their path out of EUgypt was now beset by a fearsome tribe known as the Corbynites.  

And seeing this Red Sea rise before them, they were sore afraid.

“Wherefore hast thou led us into this wilderness?” the Disraeli-ites cried unto their leader. “Were it not better to stay in the land of EUgypt, living as slaves, than to die here on these desert shores?” 

Then Mrs May replied: “Yea, verily, I have led ye into this mess of pottage. But I shall lead ye out again”.

And so saying, she went farther into the wilderness, to a savage land known as Ulster, which had long been despoiled by the warring tribes of Sodom and Begorrah.  

And lo, she saw there a burning bush, from which a voice called out. And though the bush burned, yet it was not consumed in the fire.

Therefore Mrs May asked: “Who art thou that speakest from a burning bush? And wherefore is the bush not consumed”.

Then the voice said that her name was “Arlene” and that, actually, it wasn’t a bush, more a big pile of wood pellets: “We had this wee thing called the Renewable Heat Incentive, that hath just got out of hand”.

So, quoting scripture (Ex 3:14), Mrs May said unto her, cryptically: “I AM THAT I AM”.

Then in like spirit, Arlene replied: “We are where we are”.  

After that, Mrs May ventured: “Enough is enough”.  

And finally, seeing they had so much in common, they agreed a covenant.

The covenant bound both parties to uphold the righteous and smite sinners, although when Arlene explained that the last word was spelt “shinners” in her language, the small print was amended accordingly.

And so it came to pass that the Shinners, who were also called the “Sons of Adam”, were afflicted with many plagues: first of frogs, then locusts, and after that of painful boils on the posterior that prevented them taking their seats not only in Westminster, but anywhere else.  

Then their beards (if they had beards) became lice-infested, and their make-up (if they were blonde and always impeccably presented) turned to ash.

But the last plague was of crocodiles, which Arlene said was “my little joke”. And among the Sons of Adam, verily, there was weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Then the Disraeli-ites and their new allies faced the Red Sea together.

And lo, the sea parted. And they walked across it into the promised land.

Great was the rejoicing there, at first. But despite the prophesies of Daniel (of the Hannanites) and Nigel (of the Ukippites), the milk and honey flowed not quite as expected. Nor came there any sign of the £350 million a week worth of manna from heaven that had also been mentioned.  

Therefore the Disraeli-ites soon grew hungry and thirsty, and waxed resentful.

Then Mrs May went into the wilderness again and when she returned this time, she was carrying two tablets, bearing commandments.  

So the prophet Nigel protested: “Where goest thou with those commandments? Amounteth that not to the same red tape and bureaucracy for which we fled EUgypt?”

So Mrs May was sent back to the wilderness, this time permanently.  

Then, smashing the commandments, the children of Disraeli chose a new leader.  

And the new leader, worshipped by the multitudes, was called Boris. But because of his blond mane and youthful looks, he was soon to be nicknamed the “Golden Calf”.

[BacktoDemocracy]

18 hours ago, Parley said:

It is a democracy though and as long as the DUP put up its policies prior to the election then there is no problem.

Obviously a lot of people did vote for them and agree with their policies.

Yes, but only in N Ireland not in mainland UK, democracy is not an excuse or cover for expediency and lies, and anyway the DUP represent a very small intransigent religous grouping.

[Collie]

 

Arlene Foster letter on blocking same-sex marriage in Scotland released

DUP leader asked Scottish government to block NI couples from converting civil partnerships to marriage

about 13 hours ago Updated: 9 minutes ago

DUP leader Arlene Foster: requested restriction on gay couples from Northern Ireland converting civil partnerships to same sex-marriages in Scotland. Photograph: Gareth Chaney Collins

are to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to Email App

The Scottish Government has published a written request from DUP leader Arlene Foster asking that it restrict gay couples from Northern Ireland converting their civil partnerships to same sex marriages in Scotland.

The publication comes days after Mrs Foster said she had no recollection of sending such correspondence to the administration in Edinburgh.

The letter, written in September 2015 when Mrs Foster was Stormont finance minister, urged then Scottish local government minister Marco Biagi to exclude Northern Ireland-based couples from legislation that enabled people in civil partnerships to convert those unions to same sex marriages.

Mr Biagi tweeted about the existence of the letter in the wake of the British general election, amid increased UK-wide focus on the DUP’s conservative stance on social issues such as gay marriage. The DUP is in negotiations with the Conservative party with a view to supporting a minority government in the House of Commons.

But in a radio interview last week, the former Stormont first minister denied sending such a letter.

“I’m not quite sure what he (Mr Biagi) was referring to but it certainly wasn’t a letter from me and I’ve no recollection of a letter from me,” she told BBC Radio Ulster’s Inside Politics show.

DOCUMENT

PAGES

Zoom

 

 

 

 

 

«

Page 2 of  2

»

“If I’d written to him officially as minister of finance or something like that around recognition laws here in Northern Ireland, I have no recollection of it. I certainly didn’t write in a personal capacity.”

The letter dated September 4th 2015 released by the Scottish Government on Tuesday is signed by Mrs Foster.

It was a follow-up to a letter from her predecessor as finance minister, the DUP’s Simon Hamilton. Mr Hamilton’s letter has also been made public.

The letters did not cite moral or political objections to the proposed legislation in Scotland, but highlighted potential legal issues.

They said complications could arise from couples having “dual status”, where they are recognised as civil partners in Northern Ireland but as married in Scotland.

Mrs Foster wrote: “I’m sure neither of us would wish to place same sex couple in an uncertain legal position, which maybe difficult and expensive to resolve.”

Mr Biagi rejected the request from the Northern Ireland ministers.

In his reply to Mrs Foster, dated November 24 2015, he said it would “not be appropriate” to exclude Northern Ireland couples from availing of the legislation.

Stormont’s department of finance has responsibility for marriage regulations in Northern Ireland. 

[ssiri]

 

Arlene Foster letter on blocking same-sex marriage in Scotland released

DUP leader asked Scottish government to block NI couples from converting civil partnerships to marriage

about 13 hours ago Updated: 9 minutes ago

DUP leader Arlene Foster: requested restriction on gay couples from Northern Ireland converting civil partnerships to same sex-marriages in Scotland. Photograph: Gareth Chaney Collins

are to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to Email App The Scottish Government has published a written request from DUP leader Arlene Foster asking that it restrict gay couples from Northern Ireland converting their civil partnerships to same sex marriages in Scotland. The publication comes days after Mrs Foster said she had no recollection of sending such correspondence to the administration in Edinburgh.
The letter, written in September 2015 when Mrs Foster was Stormont finance minister, urged then Scottish local government minister Marco Biagi to exclude Northern Ireland-based couples from legislation that enabled people in civil partnerships to convert those unions to same sex marriages.
Mr Biagi tweeted about the existence of the letter in the wake of the British general election, amid increased UK-wide focus on the DUP’s conservative stance on social issues such as gay marriage. The DUP is in negotiations with the Conservative party with a view to supporting a minority government in the House of Commons.
But in a radio interview last week, the former Stormont first minister denied sending such a letter.
“I’m not quite sure what he (Mr Biagi) was referring to but it certainly wasn’t a letter from me and I’ve no recollection of a letter from me,” she told BBC Radio Ulster’s Inside Politics show.
DOCUMENT PAGES Zoom           « Page 2 of  2 » “If I’d written to him officially as minister of finance or something like that around recognition laws here in Northern Ireland, I have no recollection of it. I certainly didn’t write in a personal capacity.”
The letter dated September 4th 2015 released by the Scottish Government on Tuesday is signed by Mrs Foster.
It was a follow-up to a letter from her predecessor as finance minister, the DUP’s Simon Hamilton. Mr Hamilton’s letter has also been made public.
The letters did not cite moral or political objections to the proposed legislation in Scotland, but highlighted potential legal issues.
They said complications could arise from couples having “dual status”, where they are recognised as civil partners in Northern Ireland but as married in Scotland. Mrs Foster wrote: “I’m sure neither of us would wish to place same sex couple in an uncertain legal position, which maybe difficult and expensive to resolve.”
Mr Biagi rejected the request from the Northern Ireland ministers.
In his reply to Mrs Foster, dated November 24 2015, he said it would “not be appropriate” to exclude Northern Ireland couples from availing of the legislation.
Stormont’s department of finance has responsibility for marriage regulations in Northern Ireland. 

The sooner this conservative and unionist negotiating team hits the buffers, the better IMHO. Foster sounds like a dinosaur and the Tory nasty party doesn't need to be re-established.


Sent using Poms in Oz mobile app

[BacktoDemocracy]

42 minutes ago, ssiri said:

 

The sooner this conservative and unionist negotiating team hits the buffers, the better IMHO. Foster sounds like a dinosaur and the Tory nasty party doesn't need to be re-established.


Sent using Poms in Oz mobile app

 

I'm afraid that as with many politicians with extremist positions they like to hide their prejudices out of plain view,  I'm sure that she appeals to a parochial electorate not just in NI but also on the mainland but thankfully few mainland politicians would admit to those views.

But  the Tories are giving these people a fig leaf of respectability by getting into bed with them and is frankly repulsive, it slows down the whole process of NI growing up into a mature democracy and risks all the divisions of the troubles coming out of the cupboard again

[Collie]

Owen Jones: The old Tory order is crumbling – it’s taken Grenfell for us to really see it

Similar to the collapse of the postwar social democratic contract, the neo-liberal Thatcherite consensus has also been rejected

about 6 hours ago

Owen Jones

3

The burned-out shell of the Grenfell Tower block. “The right decry the “politicisation” of this human-made disaster, but to avoid talking about the politics of this calamity is like trying to understand rain without discussing weather, or illness without biology.” NIKLAS HALLE’N/AFP/Getty Images

 

Britain’s old order is crumbling. Those who sense this most acutely, such as the rightwing press, are its defenders. This week, The Sun was reduced to begging its readers to see the evils of socialism. They are right to panic when 30 per cent of its readers ended up voting for Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party . Right to reflect that, according to a new YouGov poll, 43 per cent of people believe a “genuinely socialist government” would make Britain a “better place to live” and just 36 per cent say the reverse. Those who represent the future – younger Britons, particularly younger working-class voters – are decisively plumping for Corbyn’s new Labour party.

The political consensus established by Margaret Thatcher’s Tories – neoliberalism, for want of a more sexy word – is disintegrating. It is going the same way as the postwar social democratic consensus established by Clement Attlee, which fell apart in the late 1970s. That model – public ownership, high taxes on the rich, strong trade unions – delivered an unparalleled increase in living standards and economic growth. A surge in oil prices, and the collapse of the Bretton Woods international financial framework, helped bring that era to an end. The death of this political consensus was increasingly obvious at the time: its morbid symptoms were everywhere. Those who wanted to keep it together were powerless against the incoming tide of history. “There are times, perhaps once every 30 years, when there is a sea change in politics,” said Labour’s James Callaghan, days before he was ousted from No 10 by Thatcher . “It then does not matter what you say or what you do. There is a shift in what the public wants and what it approves of.”

The iconic episode that, for the right, summed up the fall of the postwar consensus was the “winter of discontent”. For the ascendant Thatcherites, this wave of public-sector strikes in-between 1978 and 1979 encapsulated the fragmentation of a social order they detested. Here was the chaos and tyranny of collectivism in full pomp. For the new right, it vividly illustrated the need to smash union power and roll back the frontiers of the state that sustained it. The individual would be liberated from the oppressive yoke of collectivism: that was the lesson the widespread strikes taught, or so the rightwing narrative went.

If any episode sums up the collapse of our own neoliberal era, it is surely Grenfell Tower. The right decry the “politicisation” of this human-made disaster, but to avoid talking about the politics of this calamity is like trying to understand rain without discussing weather, or illness without biology.

The Tories are desperately attempting to shore up a system that has engineered the longest squeeze in wages since the Napoleonic wars, with deteriorating public services, mediocre privatised utilities, a NHS plunged into “humanitarian crisis” , and exploding debt. It can’t even provide affordable, comfortable and safe housing for millions of its own citizens. It is incapable of meeting the needs and aspirations of the majority. The right, therefore, is left with a dilemma. It can either double down and make the ideological case for its failings and increasingly rejected system, or it can concede ground. That’s what Labour did 40 years ago. In 1977, Callaghan formally renounced Keynesianism, arguing that the option of “spending our way out of recession no longer existed” , and had only ever worked by “injecting bigger and bigger doses of inflation into the economy”. The Tories may well now try abandoning cuts in favour of investment; but surrendering ground to the enemy didn’t save Labour back then.

There were Tory MPs who believed that rejecting the postwar consensus was desirable but impossible. The electoral success of Thatcherism changed their minds, and they became willing converts. A similar process is now under way in the Labour party. There were also those Tory MPs who believed rejecting the consensus was undesirable even if it was possible: the so-called wets. They became increasingly marginalised within their own party. And then, of course, Labour was forced to accept the underlying tenets of the new social order – just as the Tories once were compelled to surrender to Attlee’s new consensus.

That’s not to breed complacency. Labour’s assumption of power – with Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister – is not inevitable. But the Labour leadership has an extra-parliamentary theory of social change. Passing legislation is important, but they don’t believe society can simply be changed by a few politicians pulling levers at the top. They believe that people in their communities and workplaces should feel collectively empowered and politically engaged.

Nothing scares Britain’s vested interests more than a politicised, mobilised population. Our social order is tottering, but it can continue to disintegrate, with painful consequences, for a long time. A new society intolerant of injustice and inequality can be created. But only the biggest mass movement in Britain’s history can make it so.

Guardian Service

[simmo]

[ssiri]

Owen Jones: The old Tory order is crumbling – it’s taken Grenfell for us to really see it

Similar to the collapse of the postwar social democratic contract, the neo-liberal Thatcherite consensus has also been rejected

about 6 hours ago Owen Jones 3

The burned-out shell of the Grenfell Tower block. “The right decry the “politicisation” of this human-made disaster, but to avoid talking about the politics of this calamity is like trying to understand rain without discussing weather, or illness without biology.” NIKLAS HALLE’N/AFP/Getty Images

  Britain’s old order is crumbling. Those who sense this most acutely, such as the rightwing press, are its defenders. This week, The Sun was reduced to begging its readers to see the evils of socialism. They are right to panic when 30 per cent of its readers ended up voting for Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party . Right to reflect that, according to a new YouGov poll, 43 per cent of people believe a “genuinely socialist government” would make Britain a “better place to live” and just 36 per cent say the reverse. Those who represent the future – younger Britons, particularly younger working-class voters – are decisively plumping for Corbyn’s new Labour party.
The political consensus established by Margaret Thatcher’s Tories – neoliberalism, for want of a more sexy word – is disintegrating. It is going the same way as the postwar social democratic consensus established by Clement Attlee, which fell apart in the late 1970s. That model – public ownership, high taxes on the rich, strong trade unions – delivered an unparalleled increase in living standards and economic growth. A surge in oil prices, and the collapse of the Bretton Woods international financial framework, helped bring that era to an end. The death of this political consensus was increasingly obvious at the time: its morbid symptoms were everywhere. Those who wanted to keep it together were powerless against the incoming tide of history. “There are times, perhaps once every 30 years, when there is a sea change in politics,” said Labour’s James Callaghan, days before he was ousted from No 10 by Thatcher . “It then does not matter what you say or what you do. There is a shift in what the public wants and what it approves of.”
The iconic episode that, for the right, summed up the fall of the postwar consensus was the “winter of discontent”. For the ascendant Thatcherites, this wave of public-sector strikes in-between 1978 and 1979 encapsulated the fragmentation of a social order they detested. Here was the chaos and tyranny of collectivism in full pomp. For the new right, it vividly illustrated the need to smash union power and roll back the frontiers of the state that sustained it. The individual would be liberated from the oppressive yoke of collectivism: that was the lesson the widespread strikes taught, or so the rightwing narrative went.
If any episode sums up the collapse of our own neoliberal era, it is surely Grenfell Tower. The right decry the “politicisation” of this human-made disaster, but to avoid talking about the politics of this calamity is like trying to understand rain without discussing weather, or illness without biology. The Tories are desperately attempting to shore up a system that has engineered the longest squeeze in wages since the Napoleonic wars, with deteriorating public services, mediocre privatised utilities, a NHS plunged into “humanitarian crisis” , and exploding debt. It can’t even provide affordable, comfortable and safe housing for millions of its own citizens. It is incapable of meeting the needs and aspirations of the majority. The right, therefore, is left with a dilemma. It can either double down and make the ideological case for its failings and increasingly rejected system, or it can concede ground. That’s what Labour did 40 years ago. In 1977, Callaghan formally renounced Keynesianism, arguing that the option of “spending our way out of recession no longer existed” , and had only ever worked by “injecting bigger and bigger doses of inflation into the economy”. The Tories may well now try abandoning cuts in favour of investment; but surrendering ground to the enemy didn’t save Labour back then.
There were Tory MPs who believed that rejecting the postwar consensus was desirable but impossible. The electoral success of Thatcherism changed their minds, and they became willing converts. A similar process is now under way in the Labour party. There were also those Tory MPs who believed rejecting the consensus was undesirable even if it was possible: the so-called wets. They became increasingly marginalised within their own party. And then, of course, Labour was forced to accept the underlying tenets of the new social order – just as the Tories once were compelled to surrender to Attlee’s new consensus.
That’s not to breed complacency. Labour’s assumption of power – with Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister – is not inevitable. But the Labour leadership has an extra-parliamentary theory of social change. Passing legislation is important, but they don’t believe society can simply be changed by a few politicians pulling levers at the top. They believe that people in their communities and workplaces should feel collectively empowered and politically engaged.
Nothing scares Britain’s vested interests more than a politicised, mobilised population. Our social order is tottering, but it can continue to disintegrate, with painful consequences, for a long time. A new society intolerant of injustice and inequality can be created. But only the biggest mass movement in Britain’s history can make it so.
Guardian Service

Owen Jones is a bit too much of a lefty for my liking, but there is more than a kernel of truth in what he says about change coming. Very safe of him to notice and hence have the ability to call it, even if he previously had a different view (ref Corbyn).

Not so sure that neoliberalism per-se is dead. However people are fed up with austerity and its many versions over the past 10 years or so and it is showing..... hence we've arrived at Brexit, Grenfell, more extremism and hung parliaments IMHO.


Sent using Poms in Oz mobile app

[ssiri]

I'm afraid that as with many politicians with extremist positions they like to hide their prejudices out of plain view,  I'm sure that she appeals to a parochial electorate not just in NI but also on the mainland but thankfully few mainland politicians would admit to those views.
But  the Tories are giving these people a fig leaf of respectability by getting into bed with them and is frankly repulsive, it slows down the whole process of NI growing up into a mature democracy and risks all the divisions of the troubles coming out of the cupboard again

Especially when a big part of the GFA was Westminster being neutral


Sent using Poms in Oz mobile app

[Collie]

5 hours ago, ssiri said:

 

 

Owen Jones is a bit too much of a lefty for my liking, but there is more than a kernel of truth in what he says about change coming. Very safe of him to notice and hence have the ability to call it, even if he previously had a different view (ref Corbyn).

Not so sure that neoliberalism per-se is dead. However people are fed up with austerity and its many versions over the past 10 years or so and it is showing..... hence we've arrived at Brexit, Grenfell, more extremism and hung parliaments IMHO.


Sent using Poms in Oz mobile app

 

 

Yeah, I'm not sure if I would go along with all of what he said, interesting viewpoint though.

If the Tories moved back towards the centre, they'd be more palatable but they seem to be a hostage the the right (far right even).

I watched a bit of the debate post the Queen's speach.  Corbyn and May both spoke well but what a joke of a parliment session, constant interventions for meaningless contributions.  The speaker was quite good though. 

 

Edited June 23, 2017 by Collie

[kungfustu]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/23/think-leave-david-dimbleby-ejects-corbynista-audience-member/

 

Watched this last night......this bloke was a pain in the ar#e.....he would not shut up and everyone new at the time he was a pro Corbyn supporter.....Momentum???.....who knows.....judging by their normal tactics you would have to guess he probably is......If Corbyn gets power his government will be dictated by Len Mccluskey and Momentum......they will be like kids in the candy store and they will rip this country apart.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/15/john-mcdonnell-calls-one-million-protesters-take-streets-bid/

 

This is the sort of politics and politicians we will be dealing with......back to the dark ages......

[simmo]

[newjez]

So the government is going to vote against increasing funding to police and fire. Is this what winning means? Outrageous.

[newjez]

On 2017-6-23 at 07:43, kungfustu said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/23/think-leave-david-dimbleby-ejects-corbynista-audience-member/

 

Watched this last night......this bloke was a pain in the ar#e.....he would not shut up and everyone new at the time he was a pro Corbyn supporter.....Momentum???.....who knows.....judging by their normal tactics you would have to guess he probably is......If Corbyn gets power his government will be dictated by Len Mccluskey and Momentum......they will be like kids in the candy store and they will rip this country apart.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/15/john-mcdonnell-calls-one-million-protesters-take-streets-bid/

 

This is the sort of politics and politicians we will be dealing with......back to the dark ages......

Thought we were already there?