nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Its not about believing him, more about - for the first time ever - hearing him speak and thinking he is right!
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)
- Thread starter SpurMeUp
- Start date
Its not about believing him, more about - for the first time ever - hearing him speak and thinking he is right!
parklane1
Tony Galvin
What's the bet there will still be wailing and nashing of teeth by some though.
markysimmo
Johnny nice-tits
amended
StephenH
David Ginola
I do and hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Why we are lead around by the US like a pet poodle things will never change!
We will never learn as we will find out again very soon!
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/18/boris-johnson-labour-brexit-election-emily-thornberry
Labour gifted Boris Johnson his ‘Brexit election’. We can’t be so inept again
Emily Thornberry
Our next leader must be able to exploit the prime minister’s failings. We shouldn’t be distracted by false internal arguments
Listening to Labour colleagues on the media over the last week, I have repeatedly heard the refrain that the problem we faced last Thursday was that “this became the Brexit election”. To which I can only say: I look forward to their tweets of shock when next Wednesday’s lunch features turkey and brussels sprouts.
Let’s be clear: this was always going to be the Brexit election, the first genuine single-issue election in 119 years. Back then, in 1900, the Tories were cynically capitalising on their early success in the Boer war to try to win another thumping majority over the Liberals. It was also Labour’s very first election, and we went into it with noble domestic ambitions far distant from the South African veldt.
Provision for the aged poor. Better houses. Useful work for the unemployed. Adequate maintenance for children. The nationalisation of railways. And the establishment of social and economic equality between the sexes. Worthy priorities indeed, but we only won two seats, while the Tories stuck to their single issue and claimed a majority of more than 130.
At least then, we never had a choice. Calling an election was entirely in the government’s gift. But this time, we have no excuse. Boris Johnson proposed an election at a time of his own choosing, on an issue of his own choosing, and we went along with it – like crackers voting for Christmas. The Liberal Democrats agreed to it because they thought it would work in their favour, and Labour because we imagined we could change the subject. That was a total delusion.
I wrote to the leader’s office warning it would be “an act of catastrophic political folly” to vote for the election, and explained exactly why we should not go along with it. I argued that the single issue of Brexit should not be enough to give Johnson a five-year mandate to enact his agenda on every issue. Instead, I said we should insist on a referendum on his proposed deal, to get the issue of Brexit out of the way before any general election.
When I raised this at the shadow cabinet, and spoke forcefully against an election, some colleagues nodded along, but the loudest voices were pro-leave colleagues insisting that we should vote with Johnson. So we wilfully went into a single-issue election with no clear position on that issue and, as every pollster predicted, we were brutally squeezed by all the other parties with an unequivocal policy on Brexit, all of them sharing a clear strategy to eat into Labour’s base.
All over the country, we could see ourselves going backwards, despite the incredible hard work of our brilliant volunteers, councillors and candidates. They saw this result coming a mile off, and were amazed that the people running the campaign could not.
Worst of all, while we tried to focus on the implications of Brexit for the NHS, the Tories more successfully tied Labour’s ambiguity on the issue to their other main argument: that Jeremy Corbyn could not be trusted with the levers of power – a complete contrast with 2017, when his clear principles and authenticity had been major assets.
People can argue that our position should have been more pro-leave or more pro-remain, but the reality is we should never have allowed a Brexit election, which was Johnson’s obvious strategic goal from the moment he took office.
The question now is: how do we fight back from here? The answer is certainly not to have some great ideological debate between left, right and centre. Neither is it to set this up as a battle between leave and remain, north and south, or indeed men and women. When did we stop being for the many, not just half of us?
It won’t earn raucous cheers at a rally, but our starting point should instead be to ask ourselves: where is the strategic thinking in our party? Who has a proper plan for the future?
Say what you like about New Labour after 1994, and it’s known that I disagree with much of what it did, but credit where credit’s due: that team had deep political insight and absolute clarity of purpose, boiled down to a five-point pledge-card. It would never have voted to give Johnson the Brexit election he craved.
When I faced Johnson for the entire two years he was foreign secretary, the only ministerial job he previously held, my strategy was to focus relentlessly on five key issues where there were huge differences between Labour’s policy and his, and where his position was indefensible: the Northern Ireland border; the war in Yemen; Donald Trump; human rights; and climate change.
I took the fight to him every day, and pummelled him every week. Each time, the mask slipped, and we saw the real man – a mendacious, lazy, dangerous charlatan, unable to hide behind the tiresome smokescreen of bluster he usually relies on. He hated it, especially coming from a woman.
So when the Labour leadership contest begins, whoever is standing – and I hope to be one of the candidates – the first question shouldn’t be about their position on Brexit, or where they live in our country.
The first question should instead be: what’s your plan for taking on Johnson over the next five years? And do you have the political nous and strategic vision to reunite our party, rebuild our machine, gain the trust of the public, give hope to our declining towns and smaller cities, and never again waste the opportunity to take back power?
Goodness knows, we’ve been taught a painful enough lesson in how to prosecute a successful political strategy by Johnson over the last five months.
And if you’re a Labour voter seized with gloom – or a Tory gleaming with complacency – just remember that in 1906, six years after the last single-issue election, the Liberal opposition won a majority of 124, with the Tories losing 246 seats. Why? Because the Tories were totally divided over trade policy and because their “single issue” of the Boer war had turned into a disaster.
Will history repeat itself now as the Tories grapple with the reality of “getting Brexit done”? Well, history has a tendency to do that. And when the next election comes, I’d certainly like Labour to have a leader and team in place with the strategic vision to foresee and exploit Johnson’s failings.
Because if we can overturn that Tory majority, we can start focusing on the pledges from that 1900 Labour manifesto, which are now more than a century overdue – on elderly people, on housing, on the unemployed, and on child poverty. That’s the prize. Let’s keep our eye on it.
Biased anti Labour newspaper The Guardian gives Labour MP platform to air their own agenda and thoughts for the party.
Labour gifted Boris Johnson his ‘Brexit election’. We can’t be so inept again
Emily Thornberry
Our next leader must be able to exploit the prime minister’s failings. We shouldn’t be distracted by false internal arguments
Listening to Labour colleagues on the media over the last week, I have repeatedly heard the refrain that the problem we faced last Thursday was that “this became the Brexit election”. To which I can only say: I look forward to their tweets of shock when next Wednesday’s lunch features turkey and brussels sprouts.
Let’s be clear: this was always going to be the Brexit election, the first genuine single-issue election in 119 years. Back then, in 1900, the Tories were cynically capitalising on their early success in the Boer war to try to win another thumping majority over the Liberals. It was also Labour’s very first election, and we went into it with noble domestic ambitions far distant from the South African veldt.
Provision for the aged poor. Better houses. Useful work for the unemployed. Adequate maintenance for children. The nationalisation of railways. And the establishment of social and economic equality between the sexes. Worthy priorities indeed, but we only won two seats, while the Tories stuck to their single issue and claimed a majority of more than 130.
At least then, we never had a choice. Calling an election was entirely in the government’s gift. But this time, we have no excuse. Boris Johnson proposed an election at a time of his own choosing, on an issue of his own choosing, and we went along with it – like crackers voting for Christmas. The Liberal Democrats agreed to it because they thought it would work in their favour, and Labour because we imagined we could change the subject. That was a total delusion.
I wrote to the leader’s office warning it would be “an act of catastrophic political folly” to vote for the election, and explained exactly why we should not go along with it. I argued that the single issue of Brexit should not be enough to give Johnson a five-year mandate to enact his agenda on every issue. Instead, I said we should insist on a referendum on his proposed deal, to get the issue of Brexit out of the way before any general election.
When I raised this at the shadow cabinet, and spoke forcefully against an election, some colleagues nodded along, but the loudest voices were pro-leave colleagues insisting that we should vote with Johnson. So we wilfully went into a single-issue election with no clear position on that issue and, as every pollster predicted, we were brutally squeezed by all the other parties with an unequivocal policy on Brexit, all of them sharing a clear strategy to eat into Labour’s base.
All over the country, we could see ourselves going backwards, despite the incredible hard work of our brilliant volunteers, councillors and candidates. They saw this result coming a mile off, and were amazed that the people running the campaign could not.
Worst of all, while we tried to focus on the implications of Brexit for the NHS, the Tories more successfully tied Labour’s ambiguity on the issue to their other main argument: that Jeremy Corbyn could not be trusted with the levers of power – a complete contrast with 2017, when his clear principles and authenticity had been major assets.
People can argue that our position should have been more pro-leave or more pro-remain, but the reality is we should never have allowed a Brexit election, which was Johnson’s obvious strategic goal from the moment he took office.
The question now is: how do we fight back from here? The answer is certainly not to have some great ideological debate between left, right and centre. Neither is it to set this up as a battle between leave and remain, north and south, or indeed men and women. When did we stop being for the many, not just half of us?
It won’t earn raucous cheers at a rally, but our starting point should instead be to ask ourselves: where is the strategic thinking in our party? Who has a proper plan for the future?
Say what you like about New Labour after 1994, and it’s known that I disagree with much of what it did, but credit where credit’s due: that team had deep political insight and absolute clarity of purpose, boiled down to a five-point pledge-card. It would never have voted to give Johnson the Brexit election he craved.
When I faced Johnson for the entire two years he was foreign secretary, the only ministerial job he previously held, my strategy was to focus relentlessly on five key issues where there were huge differences between Labour’s policy and his, and where his position was indefensible: the Northern Ireland border; the war in Yemen; Donald Trump; human rights; and climate change.
I took the fight to him every day, and pummelled him every week. Each time, the mask slipped, and we saw the real man – a mendacious, lazy, dangerous charlatan, unable to hide behind the tiresome smokescreen of bluster he usually relies on. He hated it, especially coming from a woman.
So when the Labour leadership contest begins, whoever is standing – and I hope to be one of the candidates – the first question shouldn’t be about their position on Brexit, or where they live in our country.
The first question should instead be: what’s your plan for taking on Johnson over the next five years? And do you have the political nous and strategic vision to reunite our party, rebuild our machine, gain the trust of the public, give hope to our declining towns and smaller cities, and never again waste the opportunity to take back power?
Goodness knows, we’ve been taught a painful enough lesson in how to prosecute a successful political strategy by Johnson over the last five months.
And if you’re a Labour voter seized with gloom – or a Tory gleaming with complacency – just remember that in 1906, six years after the last single-issue election, the Liberal opposition won a majority of 124, with the Tories losing 246 seats. Why? Because the Tories were totally divided over trade policy and because their “single issue” of the Boer war had turned into a disaster.
Will history repeat itself now as the Tories grapple with the reality of “getting Brexit done”? Well, history has a tendency to do that. And when the next election comes, I’d certainly like Labour to have a leader and team in place with the strategic vision to foresee and exploit Johnson’s failings.
Because if we can overturn that Tory majority, we can start focusing on the pledges from that 1900 Labour manifesto, which are now more than a century overdue – on elderly people, on housing, on the unemployed, and on child poverty. That’s the prize. Let’s keep our eye on it.
Biased anti Labour newspaper The Guardian gives Labour MP platform to air their own agenda and thoughts for the party.
Last edited:
fudging halfwit just doesn't get it.
Despite plenty of Labour MPs and voters making it very clear that it wasn't just Brexit, the message she takes from it is "It was just about Brexit"
monkeybarry
Jack Jull
Damn straight. I sit down and I won't shut up.
Just because a majority voted for it doesn't mean I'm going to agree with something I think is fundamentally wrong for the country.
I am still waiting for solid plans, strategy and benefits and I will call it out until such can be presented. If it can - I will hold my hands up and say well done. That's the basis of democracy and freedom of speech and we should all be ensuring that is protected.
I won't be holding my breath though.
parklane1
Tony Galvin
I was talking about the Brexit exit.
Parklaner81
Steve Hodge
Let them get on with it, & cement their own irrelevance. It's not like they haven't been told.
I don't want that to happen. The country needs a functioning opposition in order for parliament to work properly.
I want them to elect a leader that isn't an ideological fool. I want them to elect a leader that has some policies that go a little further than "something, something, magic money tree". I want them to elect a leader that understands the world has moved on from the 1960s.
Without that the government will just end up as bad as them.
Parklaner81
Steve Hodge
I agree with all of that. However what I'm hearing seems to suggest that most of the frontrunners for the job continue to be resistant to it, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. As much as I'd like a functioning opposition, I'd also like to see them punished for those attitudes.
I'm honestly not sure what the answer is, or where this is going if Labour continue down the self-imposed road to oblivion. It's a shame that we also seem to be lacking a credible opposition for the opposition.
Given the unshakeable determination that Momentum have to drag their party to the unelectable left, I suspect the reasonable members will have to split and form another party.
Parklaner81
Steve Hodge
You'd assume they'll have little choice if another hard left leader is elected. Then again, you also have to wonder what effect the TIG's disastrous attempt at something similar might have on their thinking.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
As I said a few pages back, if Labour do not come more central then someone else will occupy that space.
Entirely possible its a break away Labour group.
I genuinely think though that its like a law of nature, something will fill that void - so if Labour refuse it will be to their peril IMO.
Parklaner81
Steve Hodge
This would be the obvious mechanism, and would be absolutely what the defiant leftists deserve IMO - which is what my original post was driving at.
My concern is whether or not something like this can succeed, or would even be attempted in the wake of the TIG fiasco.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Eventually it HAS to, if nothing exists to balance things its going to get batbrick crazy
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
The Queen has set out the Conservative government's agenda for the year ahead, following last week's decisive election win.
Legislation to take the UK out of the EU on 31 January was among more than 30 bills being announced during Thursday's State Opening of Parliament.
Other measures included guarantees on extra health service funding and longer sentences for violent criminals.
PM Boris Johnson says he wants to unite the UK and "level up" opportunity.
But Labour said the government would be judged on how far it made up for "years of underfunding" of the health service and, so far, its proposals fell short of what was needed to deal with rising waiting times and staff vacancies.
Thursday's State Opening - the second in about two months - had less pageantry than usual, as was the case the last time a snap election was held in 2017.
The Queen travelled by car from Buckingham Palace to Parliament, rather than by horse-drawn carriage, and she did not wear ceremonial dress.
In the Queen's Speech, which is written by the government, it was announced a commitment on the health service's funding will be enshrined in law, with an extra £33.9bn per year provided by 2023/24.
A Royal Commission will be established to improve the "efficiency and effectiveness" of the criminal justice process and there are bills that will ensure the most serious violent offenders serve longer prison terms.
Of the bills included in Mr Johnson's second Queen's Speech in less than three months, seven were devoted to Brexit - with legislation on trade, agriculture, fisheries, immigration, financial services and private international law.
Addressing Parliament, the Queen said the "priority" for her government was to deliver Brexit on 31 January, but ministers also had an "ambitious programme of domestic reform that delivers on the people's priorities".
The Queen's Speech also included:
Little or no progress was made on any of its contents before MPs agreed to an early election.
The prime minister now has a Commons majority of 80 - the largest enjoyed by a Conservative leader since Margaret Thatcher in 1987.
When the pageantry is over, Parliament will be asked to immediately begin ratifying the agreement the PM negotiated in October.
The first debate and vote on an updated EU Withdrawal Agreement Bill is expected on Friday before MPs leave for the Christmas recess.
The PM's increased parliamentary authority and command of his party means it is likely to pass without major changes in the New Year in time to meet the 31 January deadline.
No 10 signalled earlier this week that it would rule out any extension to the 11-month post-Brexit transition period, in which the UK will continue to follow EU rules but without any representation in EU institutions.
Ministers have said they are confident of concluding a new trade deal by 31 December 2020 although many EU officials are sceptical this can be done in such a short amount of time.
In another move welcomed by Tory MPs, the bill will also enable more British judges to depart from previous rulings of the EU's top court.
The PM's commitment on the NHS amounts to a 3.4% year-on-year increase in expenditure, a significant increase on what the NHS received during the five year Tory-Lib Dem coalition government as well as under his predecessors David Cameron and Theresa May.
But it is significantly lower than the 6% average annual increases seen under Labour leaders Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. And when adjusted for inflation, and factoring in the increased cost of equipment, medicines and staff pay, it could actually be worth £20.5bn by 2023-4.
"If the Conservatives' plans to put funding increases into law is to be anything other than an empty gimmick, we would urge them to pledge the extra £6bn a year which experts say is needed to start to make up the cuts they've imposed for a decade," said the party's health spokesman Jonathan Ashworth.
Legislation to take the UK out of the EU on 31 January was among more than 30 bills being announced during Thursday's State Opening of Parliament.
Other measures included guarantees on extra health service funding and longer sentences for violent criminals.
PM Boris Johnson says he wants to unite the UK and "level up" opportunity.
But Labour said the government would be judged on how far it made up for "years of underfunding" of the health service and, so far, its proposals fell short of what was needed to deal with rising waiting times and staff vacancies.
Thursday's State Opening - the second in about two months - had less pageantry than usual, as was the case the last time a snap election was held in 2017.
The Queen travelled by car from Buckingham Palace to Parliament, rather than by horse-drawn carriage, and she did not wear ceremonial dress.
In the Queen's Speech, which is written by the government, it was announced a commitment on the health service's funding will be enshrined in law, with an extra £33.9bn per year provided by 2023/24.
A Royal Commission will be established to improve the "efficiency and effectiveness" of the criminal justice process and there are bills that will ensure the most serious violent offenders serve longer prison terms.
Of the bills included in Mr Johnson's second Queen's Speech in less than three months, seven were devoted to Brexit - with legislation on trade, agriculture, fisheries, immigration, financial services and private international law.
Addressing Parliament, the Queen said the "priority" for her government was to deliver Brexit on 31 January, but ministers also had an "ambitious programme of domestic reform that delivers on the people's priorities".
The Queen's Speech also included:
- Plans for an Australian-style points-based immigration system from 1 January 2021
- New visa to "ensure qualified doctors, nurses and health professionals have fast-track entry to the United Kingdom"
- Hospital car parking charges "will be removed for those in greatest need"
- A plan for "long-term reform" of social care
- Ministers will continue work to reform the Mental Health Act
- New sentencing laws to "ensure the most serious violent offenders, including terrorists, serve longer in custody"
- Those charged with knife possession will face "swift justice"
- New laws to "accelerate the delivery of gigabit capable broadband"
- The government will continue to take steps to meet net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050
- Work will be taken forward to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act - which would enable the prime minister to call an election without the consent of MPs
- Plans for a 50% business rate discount for small firms, including independent cinemas, music venues and pubs
Little or no progress was made on any of its contents before MPs agreed to an early election.
The prime minister now has a Commons majority of 80 - the largest enjoyed by a Conservative leader since Margaret Thatcher in 1987.
When the pageantry is over, Parliament will be asked to immediately begin ratifying the agreement the PM negotiated in October.
The first debate and vote on an updated EU Withdrawal Agreement Bill is expected on Friday before MPs leave for the Christmas recess.
The PM's increased parliamentary authority and command of his party means it is likely to pass without major changes in the New Year in time to meet the 31 January deadline.
No 10 signalled earlier this week that it would rule out any extension to the 11-month post-Brexit transition period, in which the UK will continue to follow EU rules but without any representation in EU institutions.
Ministers have said they are confident of concluding a new trade deal by 31 December 2020 although many EU officials are sceptical this can be done in such a short amount of time.
In another move welcomed by Tory MPs, the bill will also enable more British judges to depart from previous rulings of the EU's top court.
The PM's commitment on the NHS amounts to a 3.4% year-on-year increase in expenditure, a significant increase on what the NHS received during the five year Tory-Lib Dem coalition government as well as under his predecessors David Cameron and Theresa May.
But it is significantly lower than the 6% average annual increases seen under Labour leaders Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. And when adjusted for inflation, and factoring in the increased cost of equipment, medicines and staff pay, it could actually be worth £20.5bn by 2023-4.
"If the Conservatives' plans to put funding increases into law is to be anything other than an empty gimmick, we would urge them to pledge the extra £6bn a year which experts say is needed to start to make up the cuts they've imposed for a decade," said the party's health spokesman Jonathan Ashworth.
Grays_1890
Chris Jones
The Queens speech outlines alot of what loads of lefty and remainers were shouting about not happening. The below being a couple of my favs.
- New visa to "ensure qualified doctors, nurses and health professionals have fast-track entry to the United Kingdom" So we are not closing our doors and making harder for needed talent like claimed on here?
- The government will continue to take steps to meet net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
Give it a rest will you. And the Tele and a dozen other rabid right wing papers doesn't do the same for the Tories? Oh I forgot, you're not partisan. Yeah right! This is why I consider you to be an absolute joke. Mr Everyman.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
"Give it a rest" says the rabid nut who cant help but weigh in even when theres no need...
Keep it coming, its always funny