Emily Thornberry at it again

[Lancasterclaret]

And haven't won an election with the worst government in living memory.

Heaven help anyone in the Labour party who suggests that the Labour party is a broad church and all views need to be respected these days eh?

[ClaretMoffitt]

I've heard stuff like that before, now what was it....oh I remember now

It was "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer"

You got me.

I'm Hitler.

[bobinho]

I've heard stuff like that before, now what was it....oh I remember now

It was "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer"

And therein lies the problem. Anyone even THINKS about controlling immigration is branded a fascist.

The Germans are, and have in the past, struggled with years of war guilt, and daren't speak out about the irresponsible immigration policy sponsored by Merkel, despite KNOWING that opening the door to over a million migrants hasn't helped Europe, let alone themselves.

No ones asking for the fourth reich, just a SENSIBLE policy with regards to immigration. Yes, immigration has helped us in the past, and it makes for an interesting society, but for all the help it's been, it's also brought problems. Let's not be blind to that.

[JohnMac]

Taking aside I don't like Corbyn, he does speak very well but you then have to question the sanity, let alone leadership qualities of someone who places faith in Diane Abbott.

[Lancasterclaret]

What has "faith, flag, family" got to do with immigration?

To me, and I stress to me, but when I see someone shouting "Faith, flag, family" I see a bunch of white skinheads on a platform with lots of flags ranting about other flags they don't like, other faiths they don't like and other families they don't like.

I know that is not how (well, I hope that!) the majority will use that, but lets not pretend that its not an issue.

Its essentially what Trump is shouting, and thats not helping the USA is it?

We have a divided society at the moment, I know, lets make it worse!

[ClaretMoffitt]

Taking aside I don't like Corbyn, he does speak very well but you then have to question the sanity, let alone leadership qualities of someone who places faith in Diane Abbott.

The home secretary role is probably the single most important role in the cabinet in my opinion. The idea of having someone as incompetent as that in charge of our national security is genuinely frightening.

[joey13]

Emily thornberry.

They should do a little miss character based on the smug fat fingered champagne socialist.

Little miss metropolitan bubble dweller.

You do know you’ve lost the argument when you resort to personal abuse don’t you ?

[Lancasterclaret]

I think that is something we can all agree on!

No doubt that Abbott is a good MP for her constituency, and an effective campaigner but running stuff? Nope, not for me.

[Tall Paul]

Ringo never knows he's lost the argument.

[RingoMcCartney]

You do know you’ve lost the argument when you resort to personal abuse don’t you ?

You're probably right.

But I wasn't personally abusing Emily Thornberry. I wasn't aware she even posts on here.

[joey13]

Ringo never knows he's lost the argument.

And he always resorts to personal abuse

[Lancasterclaret]

I'm Emily Thornberry!

[RingoMcCartney]

And he always resorts to personal abuse

You've claimed that I've " personally abused " Emily Thornberry.

Can you show me where ?

[RingoMcCartney]

I'm Emily Thornberry!

You're probably better looking!

[Lancasterclaret]

Good point, I wouldn't touch Emily with yours!

[RingoMcCartney]

Good point, I wouldn't touch Emily with yours!

I wouldn't let you.

[RingoMcCartney]

And he always resorts to personal abuse

Any joy?

Within the last hour you claim I've "personally abused" Emily Thornberry and it's "something I always resort to"

Given its very recent, surely you can provide me with evidence that I actually have!?

Shouldn't be that difficult, that's if it's true.

I'll leave it with you. Remember, you're looking for proof to back your claim up, that I've "personally abused Emily Thornberry"

[joey13]

Any joy?

Within the last hour you claim I've "personally abused" Emily Thornberry and it's "something I always resort to"

Given its very recent, surely you can provide me with evidence that I actually have!?

Shouldn't be that difficult, that's if it's true.

I'll leave it with you. Remember, you're looking for proof to back your claim up, that I've "personally abused Emily Thornberry"

Unbelievable

[Guich]

I don't want to get into the argument here but...

I'd class Ringo's 'Little Miss Bubble Dweller' joke as just that - poking fun, rather than personal abuse.

And I think that's part of the problem. We often become so obsessed with getting offended on behalf of someone else for virtually no reason, that we're making a right old mess of trying to tackle to truly offensive or bullying.

I can't see ET getting upset by this, I'd like to think she'd have a chuckle.

[RingoMcCartney]

Unbelievable

Really? What's your definition of personal abuse. Up to now, despite being given a couple of opportunities to provide evidence that I've "personally abused Emily Thornberry"

So what's your definition of it. And where is your evidence I've done it to Emily Thornberry.

You were quick enough to make the accusation. But not so forthcoming in backing up that accusation.

[Spike]

the Majority of MP's steal a living

[RingoMcCartney]

Unbelievable

To help you along.

Here's what a quick Google search provided when I typed in "personal abuse"

Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent to invalidate his or her argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument.

(The key word in the above definition is PERSONAL. Remember, as far as I'm aware, the high priestess of sneering, Thornberry, isn't a regular contributor to this message board)


Now, that's the basis in which you perhaps should start.

[joey13]

To help you along.

Here's what a quick Google search provided when I typed in "personal abuse"

Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent to invalidate his or her argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument.

(The key word in the above definition is PERSONAL. Remember, as far as I'm aware, the high priestess of sneering, Thornberry, isn't a regular contributor to this message board)
It’s obviously bothering you more than it is me

Now, that's the basis in which you perhaps should start.

[ClaretMoffitt]

I don't want to get into the argument here but...

I'd class Ringo's 'Little Miss Bubble Dweller' joke as just that - poking fun, rather than personal abuse.

And I think that's part of the problem. We often become so obsessed with getting offended on behalf of someone else for virtually no reason, that we're making a right old mess of trying to tackle to truly offensive or bullying.

I can't see ET getting upset by this, I'd like to think she'd have a chuckle.

I certainly could, I think she'd make a right meal of it.

That isn't to say Ringo said anything wrong what so ever though.

[randomclaret2]

I get the impression someone doesnt understand what " bubble dweller " actually means

[ClaretMoffitt]

I get the impression someone doesnt understand what " bubble dweller " actually means

Lives in a bubble?

Is that not what it is?

[evensteadiereddie]

Kin hell.....

[If it be your will]

.

[JohnMac]

Claret Moffitt for Prime Minister!

[Bordeauxclaret]

Yey Ringo is back.

[Lancasterclaret]

Quick question ITBYW if you don't mind

Why do JC and JMcD keep saying that the EU stops them nationalising as per their manifesto?

It clearly doesn't as other countries have done more than lab are proposing.

The cynical me thinks its because the plans are a lot more epic in reality than they are willing to let on, but I'm still convinced that is just a Tory smear but it does seem weird though. is it just to a convenient excuse to avoid having to make a decision on the EU?

[If it be your will]

.

[tiger76]

Not what I was expecting, but it's workable list. I was genuinely interested what people meant by a 'proper working class' party, or a 'party for the working man' etc. You hear people say it but you're the first I've seen to actually articulate it. And you're right, the Labour Party probably doesn't (quite) fit your description.

A couple of things to consider, though. Your first policy of incentivising training will cost money for the opportunities to be there (like Labour's National Education Service plan). This will obviously cost, but your second policy is to reduce taxes and public spending. There is a lot of merit in increasing personal allowance threshold before paying tax - mainly reducing administration. But you have to remember, the lowest earners won't benefit from this. If you only earn 12,000, increasing the threshold any more doesn't help, but they will still lose those services the taxes would have paid for. Overall, in this way, higher thresholds tend to leave lower earners indirectly worse off. The qualification that you must have genuine work experience before being allowed to stand for parliament is an interesting one. Again, it's not without merit, but it does over-ride a democratic principle - that anyone can stand to be an elected representative. Denying the right for someone to stand because they don't 'qualify' would be a huge step. I'd be worried any such legislation might be rigged.

I'm personally not keen on charging for missed appointments for the simple reason the poorest, or those with the most strained/chaotic lives are most likely to struggle to make appointments, and also the ones most in need of healthcare. Enforcing health tourism restrictions is difficult - you're effectively asking doctors to police it by denying access in A&E. It goes totally against (most) doctors' principles. I personally would never refuse treatment when immediately faced with a sick person. I'd find it impossible.

Not sure what 'Flag' values are, so can't comment. Regarding faith, would this include all faiths, or just some? Which faiths, particularly? If it's all faiths, then Labour is your party, I think.

Your last policy makes me think of Scandinavia and Germany, where there is a commitment for workers' representatives to be members of the boardroom, and are given genuine influence. This bridges the gap between employers and employees. I would support that.

Workers being represented in boardrooms had been muted by mayhem but like must of her pledges she has now u-turned.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/theresa-m ... rds-2017-8

[If it be your will]

.

[AndrewJB]

ClaretMoffitt wrote:
- Tight immigration control where permanent residence is only granted to those who have skills we need to fill market gaps, while the government simultaneously make a conscious effort to incetivise training for it in the UK so we never stay dependent.

- Lower taxes by bringing down public spending in order to make a tax free threshold of up to the first 20k, truly bringing the working man/woman on low income out of tax entirely.

- Increase NHS efficiency by charging people who miss GP/specialist appointments more than once in 12 months, clamp down on health tourism and invest that more into things that matter, like services for serious illness.

- A cabinet made of people who have been there and done it, not pompous, rich, public school boys/girls who have been destined for public office since the day they went to nursery. A party made of of real men and women, who have worked, lived life and genuinely want to change things.

- A focus on traditional values, a more "Family, Flag, Faith" (despite me personally being an atheist) set of values rather than this current faceless, robotic pseudo-liberalism that is infesting all the liberal elite, not just politicians.

- A party that fights for not just workers rights, but for business rights too; one that doesn't jump into bed with the unions and communists, rather one with an authentic approach where workers and businesses are treated fairly and not set upon each other.

Are you actually working class? I ask this because you haven't listed anything a working class voter might really ask for. Affordable housing. Jobs that pay a decent wage. Wealth redistribution (are you not appalled by the fact that during austerity the very richest have become twice as rich?). Well funded health and education. Vulnerable people looked after.

Your platform is daily mail on steroids.

[Spiral]

He's six months away from attempting to intellectualise 'Blood and Soil'.

Was almost gonna' give the lad the benefit of the doubt, then he typed 'family, flag, faith'. It's skinhead Nazi ideology, even if he doesn't know it/can't bring himself to accept it.

A party that fights for not just workers rights, but for business rights too; one that doesn't jump into bed with the unions and communists, rather one with an authentic approach where workers and businesses are treated fairly and not set upon each other.

Of all the stupid dumb ignorant $hit on the thread, this is the best. It's literally a power dynamic. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred worker rights vs employer rights is zero-sum. I'm not sure what 'business rights' actually means beyond regulatory rigour. Define an 'authentic approach'. You can't. Doesn't mean anything. It's nonsense. It's supposed to elicit a wholesome Postman Pat/Thomas the Tank Engine aesthetic; it's a vision of an England that never has and never will exist. It's a fantasy. Fcuk it, define 'fair'. You can't. Not objectively, anyway, because it's about power. You'd need a governing body with the mandate of the masses to be the arbiter. The closest we can get to the illusion of a middle ground is the Lib Dems in government, and we all know you aren't talking about them when you talk of 'family, flag and faith'. It has always been about one person's short-term economic agency over another, the extent to which they are willing to wield that power, and to what ends. It has always been about worker vs employer in some shape or form, ever since feudal times. You're living in la la land to pretend otherwise. I won't ever judge you for being a grateful serf or a class traitor or whatever is the economic power dynamic-equivalent of an Uncle Tom, but you certainly have my pity for succumbing to your deluded sense of victimhood.

[Woodleyclaret]

Corbyn needs to have a serious look at the crap his mps are spouting.We have a massive housing crisis and a government intend on arselicking the USA yet these fools get bogged down on trivia.

[ClaretMoffitt]

He's six months away from attempting to intellectualise 'Blood and Soil'.

Was almost gonna' give the lad the benefit of the doubt, then he typed 'family, flag, faith'. It's skinhead Nazi ideology, even if he doesn't know it/can't bring himself to accept it.



Of all the stupid dumb ignorant $hit on the thread, this is the best. It's literally a power dynamic. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred worker rights vs employer rights is zero-sum. I'm not sure what 'business rights' actually means beyond regulatory rigour. Define an 'authentic approach'. You can't. Doesn't mean anything. It's nonsense. It's supposed to elicit a wholesome Postman Pat/Thomas the Tank Engine aesthetic; it's a vision of an England that never has and never will exist. It's a fantasy. Fcuk it, define 'fair'. You can't. Not objectively, anyway, because it's about power. You'd need a governing body with the mandate of the masses to be the arbiter. The closest we can get to the illusion of a middle ground is the Lib Dems in government, and we all know you aren't talking about them when you talk of 'family, flag and faith'. It has always been about one person's short-term economic agency over another, the extent to which they are willing to wield that power, and to what ends. It has always been about worker vs employer in some shape or form, ever since feudal times. You're living in la la land to pretend otherwise. I won't ever judge you for being a grateful serf or a class traitor or whatever is the economic power dynamic-equivalent of an Uncle Tom, but you certainly have my pity for succumbing to your deluded sense of victimhood.

That is literally the most pathetic, whiney, estrogen filled post I have ever seen. Totally and utterly hysterical.

[ClaretMoffitt]

If it be your will"]Not what I was expecting, but it's workable list. I was genuinely interested what people meant by a 'proper working class' party, or a 'party for the working man' etc. You hear people say it but you're the first I've seen to actually articulate it. And you're right, the Labour Party probably doesn't (quite) fit your description.

I could certainly add to it in more detail, I could probably write a dissertation of what (in my view) the working classes of this country really want.

A couple of things to consider, though. Your first policy of incentivising training will cost money for the opportunities to be there (like Labour's National Education Service plan). This will obviously cost, but your second policy is to reduce taxes and public spending. There is a lot of merit in increasing personal allowance threshold before paying tax - mainly reducing administration. But you have to remember, the lowest earners won't benefit from this. If you only earn 12,000, increasing the threshold any more doesn't help, but they will still lose those services the taxes would have paid for. Overall, in this way, higher thresholds tend to leave lower earners indirectly worse off. The qualification that you must have genuine work experience before being allowed to stand for parliament is an interesting one. Again, it's not without merit, but it does over-ride a democratic principle - that anyone can stand to be an elected representative. Denying the right for someone to stand because they don't 'qualify' would be a huge step. I'd be worried any such legislation might be rigged.

Sure, it will cost money. However, the training of our citizens for gaps in the market we actually have an economic need for filling is justifiable to me. Its not like generic spending on things that vaguely sound plausible; its addressing a direct problem within the economy, you see a gap, you fill it and consequently you create what will be high paying jobs for your citizens. The tax threshold to me is probably the most important single policy for incentivising full time work and rewarding those on low incomes, yes, to those earning under 12k it won't make a difference, but the vast majority of people in this country earn between 12-25k so a hell of a lot of people would be benefiting. You can't make everyone happy, but I strongly believe the low earning, working class people who work 40 hours a week, every week strongly deserve to keep every penny they earn.

I wouldn't say it's a rule per se (regarding the work experience for politicians) more just an ethos. I want a party to represent me that as least bears some resemblance to me. It would be impossible to find a party full of people who have started from the bottom, excelled in their fields, are educated and honest/dedicated to changing the country. Those types of people are just too rare to fill a party, you need a little mix of everything. However, I would like to see that type of person leading the party, shaping it, and setting the tome for how it is perceived outwardly and projected internally. Put simply, I want to see a party with leaders of substance, real men and women who have been there, done it, and lived life from all kinds of perspectives.

I'm personally not keen on charging for missed appointments for the simple reason the poorest, or those with the most strained/chaotic lives are most likely to struggle to make appointments, and also the ones most in need of healthcare. Enforcing health tourism restrictions is difficult - you're effectively asking doctors to police it by denying access in A&E. It goes totally against (most) doctors' principles. I personally would never refuse treatment when immediately faced with a sick person. I'd find it impossible.

There will always be extenuating circumstances, and appropriate people should be in place to determine where charges may be inappropriate, but when all is said and done, the NHS can't afford people using it with disregard. People, ultimately, are accountable for their own actions, and I've read up to 1/6th of GP appointments are missed, that is a hell of a lot of missed appointments nationally. If people know they will be charged for missing appointments they will be less likely to miss them, which will ease a hell of a lot of strain on GP surgeries and save the NHS money, as well as bringing in more money from the charges themselves. Its a win/win for me.
Obviously nobody is saying to turn away a person who is critically ill or in need of urgent medical care. No doctor is going to refuse to treat a patient who turns up in Cardiac Arrest to an A+E and nor should they. However, those who are non-british citizens an are simply using the NHS for care that is not urgent (prolonged and ongoing treatment) should be made to pay. It's not fair and it affects the treatment of other people as resources are not infinite.

Not sure what 'Flag' values are, so can't comment. Regarding faith, would this include all faiths, or just some? Which faiths, particularly? If it's all faiths, then Labour is your party, I think.

Flag values are nationalism, people having a bit of pride in their flag, in their country, not embarrassed of ashamed by it. Faith is the historic faith of this country, the faith is was built upon (christian values). Of course everyone should be free to practise their own faiths (including lack of faith) in any way they see fit; however I don't believe we should move towards multi-faith projection. In truth I believe that faith should be more symbolic with regards to the state and certainly not decisive in any policy or practise. As an atheist, I can appreciate how historically Christian values have shaped European society as a whole, and it has resulted in great things so I feel an element of that should always remain, if only for identity purpose and sense of historic value.

Your last policy makes me think of Scandinavia and Germany, where there is a commitment for workers' representatives to be members of the boardroom, and are given genuine influence. This bridges the gap between employers and employees. I would support that.

I don't know much about that, but in theory is sounds like the type of thing I'd like to see, sure.

[If it be your will]

.

[ClaretMoffitt]

This is just it. I accidentally take you seriously again then you use the word estrogen as an attack, and I'm back into thinking you are still down that misogynistic, bigoted, narrow-minded well of despair, rage, and disappointment. You won't achieve anything from down there.

So someone makes a baseless, totally hysterical post accusing me of Nazi skinhead rhetoric as well as a class traitor and other such nonsense about victim-hood disillusion (I dont even know where that's come from) and I'm the problem because I call him whiney?

[Lancasterclaret]

To be fair, and has already been pointed out by me and Spiral, "flag, faith, family" is pure Nazi rhetoric.

You almost certainly don't mean it that way, but that does not change what it is.

We can argue till the cows come home that it shouldn't be hijacked by the Nazis and the Fascists but it has been.

And having pride in a flag (up to a point!), faith and family is what everybody already has. Its just that some take it too far.

Regarding the rest of the post (which is good btw), when you say "train our own first", what if we haven't got enough of our own to do it and not many of enough of want to do it?

Whats the solution there? Force them? And then we are back to the just what are advocating?

[ClaretMoffitt]

To be fair, and has already been pointed out by me and Spiral, "flag, faith, family" is pure Nazi rhetoric.

You don't mean it that way, but that does not change what it is.

We can argue till the cows come home that it shouldn't be hijacked by the Nazis and the Fascists but it has been.

And having pride in a flag (up to a point!), faith and family is what everybody already has. Its just that some take it too far.

Regarding the rest of the post (which is good btw), when you say "train our own first", what if we haven't got enough of our own to do it and not many of them want to do it?

Whats the solution there?

Fixed that second line for you mate.

And to be fair, I didn't say we should train our own first, I said we should utilise skilled immigration as an immediate solution to fill said gaps, whilst simultaneously training our own to reduce dependency on other nations. If we can't (for whatever reason) incentivise our own to train up with subsidies and the prospect of high paid employment then we'll just have to keep importing the skill, no point cutting our nose off to spite our face. What im saying is simply we shouldn't just look overseas every time there is a skills gap and just constantly look for the quick fix.

[Greenmile]

So someone makes a baseless, totally hysterical post accusing me of Nazi skinhead rhetoric as well as a class traitor and other such nonsense about victim-hood disillusion (I dont even know where that's come from) and I'm the problem because I call him whiney?

Nothing wrong with calling someone whiney, but using “estrogen filled” as a pejorative is pretty clearly misogynistic.

[ClaretMoffitt]

Nothing wrong with calling someone whiney, but using “estrogen filled” as a pejorative is pretty clearly misogynistic.

Okay, whatever, if it makes everyone here happy.

Feel free to label me a misogynist.

I suppose none of you lot have ever referred to anyone as "a big girl" or a "big girls blouse" either.

[Greenmile]

To be fair, and has already been pointed out by me and Spiral, "flag, faith, family" is pure Nazi rhetoric.

To be even fairer, whilst it’s very right wing rhetoric, I think “Nazi” or “fascist” is a bit strong, and I suspect the members of the Cornerstone Group might agree.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Group" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Lancasterclaret]

Ok, look at it another way

Did you see it kick off at that "Freedom of Speech" thingy down in London. Now everyone there believes in freedom of speech, but some of them believe in freedom of their speech but not of others.

I'm guessing there are genuinely plenty of people who believe in actual, proper freedom of speech, but also quite a few who think they should be the ones who decide and say what that freedom is and who it should apply to.

They kick off when they are called Nazis and Fascists, because that is exactly what they are, and they try to hide it behind a veneer of respectability ("How can I be a thug? Look, I've written a book etc etc)

How do you push for laudable ideas without having the nutters taking over?

I mean, Brexit is another example. Both sides now have uber nutters who will stop at nothing to get what they want.

Bit rambling, but my point is that we have to be careful what we push for, because we might not like what that pushing creates.

[If it be your will]

.

[Greenmile]

Agree with all of that, Lancs. I was just saying that, although I don’t agree with it at all (well ok, maybe the final third of it), “flag, faith family” does not appear to have been entirely highjacked by actual Nazis yet.

I’m not sure even Rees-Mogg would join an organisation with a motto of, say, “hail victory” for example.

[ClaretMoffitt]

Why does every single thread about politics on this forum always end up with Nazis being the centre point of debate...