Just when one imagines that British politics could not become more farcical.
The new leader of UKIP manages a full 18 hours before resigning.
Steven Woolfe is tipped as the new leader.
Steven Woolfe has a punch up in the European Court with a fellow UKIP MEP and is in hospital.
Arron Banks, UKIP's main benefactor threatens to quit and withdraw finance after being forced to apologise for stating that Douglas Carswell is 'borderline autistic with mental illness".
Arron Banks also speaks of starting a new party but insists on barring Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless.
Meanwhile, in the loony socialist club, Corbyn announces, former lover, Dianne Abbott as shadow home secretary.
Well done chaps. You have just guaranteed a 2020 Tory landslide.
It has to be a bad dream.
It has to be a bad dream.
Momus;1501726 wrote: The new leader of UKIP manages a full 18 hours before resigning.Days. Big difference. It gives her time to have consulted and discovered the actual extent of her authority in practice as opposed to a mere hissy fit.
UKIP leader Diane James standing down after 18 days - BBC News
former lover, Dianne Abbott as shadow home secretary.
Edwina Currie still takes the biscuit, she and John Major both ending up in the real, as opposed to mere shadow, cabinet at the same time while he was the real, as opposed to mere shadow,, Prime Minister, after him going on about returning to Victorian Values while seducing poor sweet Edwina from the straight and narrow path of righteous restraint. I do wonder which Victorians they took as their model.
Westminster's odd coupleThe man who tucked his shirt into his underpants had a four year affair with the most outspoken and sexually interested woman of her political generation - a sort of Essex girl Margaret Thatcher.
It's like learning that Betty Boop had been doing it with Elmer Fudd all those years.
UKIP leader Diane James standing down after 18 days - BBC News
former lover, Dianne Abbott as shadow home secretary.
Edwina Currie still takes the biscuit, she and John Major both ending up in the real, as opposed to mere shadow, cabinet at the same time while he was the real, as opposed to mere shadow,, Prime Minister, after him going on about returning to Victorian Values while seducing poor sweet Edwina from the straight and narrow path of righteous restraint. I do wonder which Victorians they took as their model.
Westminster's odd coupleThe man who tucked his shirt into his underpants had a four year affair with the most outspoken and sexually interested woman of her political generation - a sort of Essex girl Margaret Thatcher.
It's like learning that Betty Boop had been doing it with Elmer Fudd all those years.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
It has to be a bad dream.
spot;1501734 wrote: Days. Big difference. It gives her time to have consulted and discovered the actual extent of her authority in practice as opposed to a mere hissy fit.
UKIP leader Diane James standing down after 18 days - BBC News
I apologise for the flub that only endorses why i should not post in the small hours. I was never of the opinion that Diane James resigned due to a hissy fit. The general reporting from the UKIP populous suggests she found no authority or support within the party to implement changes. The hubris of most members appears to be the original stance on immigration and those Tories who defected, appear to be at loggerheads with the party faithful in their attempts to convert to mainstream and adopt a more acceptable manifesto to the masses.
John Major. Yes, one could not find a more revolting example of cabinet, carnal coitus.
Edwina Currie still takes the biscuit, she and John Major both ending up in the real, as opposed to mere shadow, cabinet at the same time while he was the real, as opposed to mere shadow,, Prime Minister, after him going on about returning to Victorian Values while seducing poor sweet Edwina from the straight and narrow path of righteous restraint. I do wonder which Victorians they took as their model.
Westminster's odd coupleThe man who tucked his shirt into his underpants had a four year affair with the most outspoken and sexually interested woman of her political generation - a sort of Essex girl Margaret Thatcher.
It's like learning that Betty Boop had been doing it with Elmer Fudd all those years.
I apologise for the flub that only endorses why i should not post in the small hours. I was never of the opinion that Diane James resigned due to a hissy fit. The general reporting from the UKIP populous suggests she found no authority or support within the party to implement changes. The hubris of most members appears to be the original stance on immigration and those Tories who defected, appear to be at loggerheads with the party faithful in their attempts to convert to mainstream and adopt a more acceptable manifesto to the masses.
John Major. Yes, one could not find a more revolting example of cabinet, carnal coitus.
UKIP leader Diane James standing down after 18 days - BBC News
I apologise for the flub that only endorses why i should not post in the small hours. I was never of the opinion that Diane James resigned due to a hissy fit. The general reporting from the UKIP populous suggests she found no authority or support within the party to implement changes. The hubris of most members appears to be the original stance on immigration and those Tories who defected, appear to be at loggerheads with the party faithful in their attempts to convert to mainstream and adopt a more acceptable manifesto to the masses.
John Major. Yes, one could not find a more revolting example of cabinet, carnal coitus.
Edwina Currie still takes the biscuit, she and John Major both ending up in the real, as opposed to mere shadow, cabinet at the same time while he was the real, as opposed to mere shadow,, Prime Minister, after him going on about returning to Victorian Values while seducing poor sweet Edwina from the straight and narrow path of righteous restraint. I do wonder which Victorians they took as their model.
Westminster's odd coupleThe man who tucked his shirt into his underpants had a four year affair with the most outspoken and sexually interested woman of her political generation - a sort of Essex girl Margaret Thatcher.
It's like learning that Betty Boop had been doing it with Elmer Fudd all those years.
I apologise for the flub that only endorses why i should not post in the small hours. I was never of the opinion that Diane James resigned due to a hissy fit. The general reporting from the UKIP populous suggests she found no authority or support within the party to implement changes. The hubris of most members appears to be the original stance on immigration and those Tories who defected, appear to be at loggerheads with the party faithful in their attempts to convert to mainstream and adopt a more acceptable manifesto to the masses.
John Major. Yes, one could not find a more revolting example of cabinet, carnal coitus.
It has to be a bad dream.
You say it has to be a dream ? It's just turned into a nightmare.........Tony Blair considering future role in British politics
Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse.
Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
It has to be a bad dream.
Bruv;1501738 wrote: You say it has to be a dream ? It's just turned into a nightmare.........Tony Blair considering future role in British politics
Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse.
I think it merely endorses the fact that Blair is mentally unstable and deluded in his idea that he is a national treasure. He seems to possess the idea that he will be the second coming, the Labour messiah to save the nation from a landslide victory for the Tories in 2020 while, out of touch with reality, his presence will only secure the death of Labour further. With Theresa May embracing a further right wing approach such as proposing to deport immigrant criminals, and attacking the liberal elite, she is appealing more and more to the far right, along with her party faithful. Blair would be laughed out of the country.
Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse.
I think it merely endorses the fact that Blair is mentally unstable and deluded in his idea that he is a national treasure. He seems to possess the idea that he will be the second coming, the Labour messiah to save the nation from a landslide victory for the Tories in 2020 while, out of touch with reality, his presence will only secure the death of Labour further. With Theresa May embracing a further right wing approach such as proposing to deport immigrant criminals, and attacking the liberal elite, she is appealing more and more to the far right, along with her party faithful. Blair would be laughed out of the country.
It has to be a bad dream.
Don't worry donald will save us.
UK will be first for trade deal - Donald Trump adviser - BBC News
http://www.thenational.scot/comment/mha ... obia.23314
“I sometimes fear that people think that fascism arrives in fancy dress worn by grotesques and monsters as played out in endless re-runs of the Nazis. Fascism arrives as your friend. It will restore your honour, make you feel proud, protect your house, give you a job, clean up the neighbourhood, remind you of how great you once were, clear out the venal and the corrupt, remove anything you feel is unlike you...
Fascism creeps up on us, and what we have seen this week can only be described, and must be described as the first steps of that.
She's the youngest MP in westminster and turfed out one of the labour high heid yins to get her seat, maybe gives an idea of the level of debate in scotland it's way beyond what you get in the daily mail. most of her constitients will actually get the references.
UK will be first for trade deal - Donald Trump adviser - BBC News
http://www.thenational.scot/comment/mha ... obia.23314
“I sometimes fear that people think that fascism arrives in fancy dress worn by grotesques and monsters as played out in endless re-runs of the Nazis. Fascism arrives as your friend. It will restore your honour, make you feel proud, protect your house, give you a job, clean up the neighbourhood, remind you of how great you once were, clear out the venal and the corrupt, remove anything you feel is unlike you...
Fascism creeps up on us, and what we have seen this week can only be described, and must be described as the first steps of that.
She's the youngest MP in westminster and turfed out one of the labour high heid yins to get her seat, maybe gives an idea of the level of debate in scotland it's way beyond what you get in the daily mail. most of her constitients will actually get the references.
It has to be a bad dream.
gmc;1501761 wrote: Don't worry donald will save us.
UK will be first for trade deal - Donald Trump adviser - BBC News
Joking aside, right now, i would say, they need us more than we need them.
OEC - United Kingdom (GBR) Exports, Imports, and Trade Partners
UK will be first for trade deal - Donald Trump adviser - BBC News
Joking aside, right now, i would say, they need us more than we need them.
OEC - United Kingdom (GBR) Exports, Imports, and Trade Partners
It has to be a bad dream.
Momus;1501763 wrote: Joking aside, right now, i would say, they need us more than we need them.
OEC - United Kingdom (GBR) Exports, Imports, and Trade Partners
Of that trade how much is a result of our being in the eu single market and how easy would it be for all those factories to shift to europe when it's time to make decisions about retooling for new product runs? We wouldn't have any kind of worthwhile economy without the single market an our membership of it - we were bankrupt in the seventies thanjks in no small part.
Thank to us opting out the social contract it's cheaper to shut a factory in the UK than anywhere else in europe do you really think nissan and toyota will be hanging around once we pull out? same with all the mduical supply compnies even more so once we lose all the eu research funding. The cost of impoprted raw materials is rising our once competitive factories will no longer be so. Ford have already ceased car production shifting an engine factory is no big deal no one cares where rolls royce or the mini is made
Brexit: Sunderland 'worried' about Nissan's threat to put investment on hold | The Independent
The plant in Sunderland produces about a third of the UK’s car output and is heavily dependent on exports to the single market
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... nt-tariffs
It's not how things are that matter it's what is likely to happen as a result of brexit. They donlt need our stuff theybuy it because it's good value we buy their's because we have to to use in making the stuff we sell back to them.
OEC - United Kingdom (GBR) Exports, Imports, and Trade Partners
Of that trade how much is a result of our being in the eu single market and how easy would it be for all those factories to shift to europe when it's time to make decisions about retooling for new product runs? We wouldn't have any kind of worthwhile economy without the single market an our membership of it - we were bankrupt in the seventies thanjks in no small part.
Thank to us opting out the social contract it's cheaper to shut a factory in the UK than anywhere else in europe do you really think nissan and toyota will be hanging around once we pull out? same with all the mduical supply compnies even more so once we lose all the eu research funding. The cost of impoprted raw materials is rising our once competitive factories will no longer be so. Ford have already ceased car production shifting an engine factory is no big deal no one cares where rolls royce or the mini is made
Brexit: Sunderland 'worried' about Nissan's threat to put investment on hold | The Independent
The plant in Sunderland produces about a third of the UK’s car output and is heavily dependent on exports to the single market
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... nt-tariffs
It's not how things are that matter it's what is likely to happen as a result of brexit. They donlt need our stuff theybuy it because it's good value we buy their's because we have to to use in making the stuff we sell back to them.
It has to be a bad dream.
Just what is wrong about appointing Diane Abbot as Shadow Home Secretary. She is an accomplished politician in her own right. In fact I could even see her as Deputy Leader. As for being Jeremy's former lover - so what? There was never anything surreptitious in it. Just why should having once had a personal relationship have anything to do with someone's ability to do a job?
As for MPs fighting - that should (and probably will) result in hteir expulsion from the Party, and furthermore, may well result in the Police becoming involved, although I imagine that would only happen if charges were to be pressed.
As for MPs fighting - that should (and probably will) result in hteir expulsion from the Party, and furthermore, may well result in the Police becoming involved, although I imagine that would only happen if charges were to be pressed.
It has to be a bad dream.
gmc;1501781 wrote: Of that trade how much is a result of our being in the eu single market and how easy would it be for all those factories to shift to europe when it's time to make decisions about retooling for new product runs? We wouldn't have any kind of worthwhile economy without the single market an our membership of it - we were bankrupt in the seventies thanjks in no small part.
.
Of course, there are pro's and con's of Brexit and trade, but the pro's are not sufficient to remain in a crumbling entity where we paid in more than 26 other member states and propped up the weaker economies. In 2015, approx 40 % of our exports went to the EU, but that has been in decline and our exports outside of the EU have steadily been increasing. Something the remain camp are reluctant to broadcast.
Just over 50% of our imports came from member states of the EU and those weaker economies, which was much of the fear associated with Brexit. ie They need the UK more than the UK needs them.
The scaremongering from the remain camp, is should the UK leave, we will see an enormous reduction in our service industry exports, but this is not true. The UK can still trade within the EU but pay tariffs to do so. Under the World trade Organisation, the UK, would be treated no differently to outside EU trade tariffs. To suggest that EU member states would immediately cut off the UK from exporting to them, is ridiculous.
.
Of course, there are pro's and con's of Brexit and trade, but the pro's are not sufficient to remain in a crumbling entity where we paid in more than 26 other member states and propped up the weaker economies. In 2015, approx 40 % of our exports went to the EU, but that has been in decline and our exports outside of the EU have steadily been increasing. Something the remain camp are reluctant to broadcast.
Just over 50% of our imports came from member states of the EU and those weaker economies, which was much of the fear associated with Brexit. ie They need the UK more than the UK needs them.
The scaremongering from the remain camp, is should the UK leave, we will see an enormous reduction in our service industry exports, but this is not true. The UK can still trade within the EU but pay tariffs to do so. Under the World trade Organisation, the UK, would be treated no differently to outside EU trade tariffs. To suggest that EU member states would immediately cut off the UK from exporting to them, is ridiculous.
It has to be a bad dream.
FourPart;1501785 wrote: Just what is wrong about appointing Diane Abbot as Shadow Home Secretary. She is an accomplished politician in her own right. In fact I could even see her as Deputy Leader. As for being Jeremy's former lover - so what? There was never anything surreptitious in it. Just why should having once had a personal relationship have anything to do with someone's ability to do a job?
As for MPs fighting - that should (and probably will) result in hteir expulsion from the Party, and furthermore, may well result in the Police becoming involved, although I imagine that would only happen if charges were to be pressed.
Good heavens above, you really are out of touch. I find immense irony in your post. So you would like to see Labour traitors and rebels sacked for disloyalty to the leader would you? I assume then, providing of course, that you are not a hypocrite, that you would have called for the same of Ms Abbott in 2013? Abbott was sacked by Miliband for not showing loyalty. That is the same loyalty that you claim rebels, today should be sacked for. In fact, true to form, Ms Abbott whipped out her race card, and claimed her dismissal was due to Miliband pandering to anti immigration sentiment, something Ms Abbott does rather well but is now a tired rhetoric that is expected whenever the lady doesn't get her own way. Further more, upon her dismissal, she allegedly stated that it would enable her to concentrate more of her Hackney constituents, something she appears to have forgotten now she's hustling for cabinet appointments.
The woman is famous for white racism and comments that would have seen Farage behind bars. Recently, her words, " London shouldn't have another white, middle-aged man as mayor" are merely one of historical attacks on British white populations. To go as far as branding 17 million Brexit voters as racist shows an immature, chip on shoulder, undemocratic agitator who has no place in government, although Labour's chances of ever forming a government ever again, are as remote as Bigfoot being found in Scotland.
Along with with facing prosecution for failing to file accounts to Company House for her dubious charity Diane Abbott Foundation , she is a liability.
Are you saying therefore Fourpart, that those rebels failing to show loyalty to Corbyn should be removed, yet you overlook Ms Abbott's failure to show loyalty and trouble making for Miliband and deem them acceptable ?
As for MPs fighting - that should (and probably will) result in hteir expulsion from the Party, and furthermore, may well result in the Police becoming involved, although I imagine that would only happen if charges were to be pressed.
Good heavens above, you really are out of touch. I find immense irony in your post. So you would like to see Labour traitors and rebels sacked for disloyalty to the leader would you? I assume then, providing of course, that you are not a hypocrite, that you would have called for the same of Ms Abbott in 2013? Abbott was sacked by Miliband for not showing loyalty. That is the same loyalty that you claim rebels, today should be sacked for. In fact, true to form, Ms Abbott whipped out her race card, and claimed her dismissal was due to Miliband pandering to anti immigration sentiment, something Ms Abbott does rather well but is now a tired rhetoric that is expected whenever the lady doesn't get her own way. Further more, upon her dismissal, she allegedly stated that it would enable her to concentrate more of her Hackney constituents, something she appears to have forgotten now she's hustling for cabinet appointments.
The woman is famous for white racism and comments that would have seen Farage behind bars. Recently, her words, " London shouldn't have another white, middle-aged man as mayor" are merely one of historical attacks on British white populations. To go as far as branding 17 million Brexit voters as racist shows an immature, chip on shoulder, undemocratic agitator who has no place in government, although Labour's chances of ever forming a government ever again, are as remote as Bigfoot being found in Scotland.
Along with with facing prosecution for failing to file accounts to Company House for her dubious charity Diane Abbott Foundation , she is a liability.
Are you saying therefore Fourpart, that those rebels failing to show loyalty to Corbyn should be removed, yet you overlook Ms Abbott's failure to show loyalty and trouble making for Miliband and deem them acceptable ?
It has to be a bad dream.
Enjoying the paragraph set out........still the same old content though.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
It has to be a bad dream.
You just don't get it do you. The rebel MPs are remnants of the Blairite, Tory-Lite era. A regime of politics that are totally alien to the Party ideology. There had been a choice between Fascism & Tory-Lite. Tory wasn't as bad as the Fascism of the day. That's how Blair got in. Not for his policies, but that it was the lesser of 2 evils. Now that Corbyn is in, the true face of Socialist Labour & the principles it has always traditionally stood for has had a revitalising - like a phoenix rising from the ashes. This turnaround goes totally in the face of the dinosaurs remaining from Blair's Tory-Lite policies. Despite the overwhelming majority of the members who select the candidates they still continue to insist that their own way is the only way despite what the democratic majority say. Whether you agree with Corbyn being leader or not, it is undeniable that he is the democratic choice of the Party Members. He is the one who has been chosen BY the Members to speak FOR the members. It is not the place of the PLP to go AGAINST the wishes of the Members. Corbyn was democratically elected as leader & they should either accept this or stand down. By following Blair's policies their politics are in conflict with those of the Party & should, therefore, not be selected as candidates for future elections. I would also support the Recall Bill, which would give constituents of a ward the right to recall an M.P. for a By-Election if they felt he / she was not representing their views as they were supposed to be doing. That is a Bill that applies cross-party - it is not a Party specific one & is a Bill that is currently being reviewed for debate. Put quite simply, if someone is voted in as a Labour candidate, then you expect them to be promoting Labour policies - not Tory ones. If they're not in support of Labour principles, then there should no place in a Labour Cabinet for them. Why can't you understand that?
It has to be a bad dream.
What you are actually saying, is that you wish to see the sacking of Labour rebels, yet you are more than happy to see Ms Abbott reinstated after being sacked also? Old Labour, new Labour has nothing to do with it. You are talking about nothing else but your support of Corbyn as all else, makes you a hypocrite. What next? The appointment of sacked George Galloway as minister of Jewish interests? Or how about Kieth Vaz as minister for sexual development? I'm sure old Red Ken could even be found a job somewhere.
What you seem to fail to grasp, is that all political parties evolve. Members join under different leaders, at different times. The volume of senior politicians resigning is an indication that Corbyn's vision is outdated and unwanted. Rather than observe the tired old hasbeens who support him, look at the sheer volume who are against returning to an age of union strangleholds that crippled GDP and exports, along with debt.
If anyone needed a further insight as to Corbyn's agenda, then look no further than this tweet made some minutes ago.
Jeremy Corbyn for PM @JeremyCorbyn4PM 26m26 minutes ago
Jeremy Corbyn for PM Retweeted Kate Osamor MP
Absolutely agree #IStandWithDiane
Remain very proud we have 1st black woman shad home sec. @HackneyAbbott is best answer to Tory xenophobia
There is, never was, and never need be, a cause to mention Ms Abbott is black. It says it all.
What you seem to fail to grasp, is that all political parties evolve. Members join under different leaders, at different times. The volume of senior politicians resigning is an indication that Corbyn's vision is outdated and unwanted. Rather than observe the tired old hasbeens who support him, look at the sheer volume who are against returning to an age of union strangleholds that crippled GDP and exports, along with debt.
If anyone needed a further insight as to Corbyn's agenda, then look no further than this tweet made some minutes ago.
Jeremy Corbyn for PM @JeremyCorbyn4PM 26m26 minutes ago
Jeremy Corbyn for PM Retweeted Kate Osamor MP
Absolutely agree #IStandWithDiane
Remain very proud we have 1st black woman shad home sec. @HackneyAbbott is best answer to Tory xenophobia
There is, never was, and never need be, a cause to mention Ms Abbott is black. It says it all.
It has to be a bad dream.
It sounds to me as if you are more opposed to Diane Abbott becoming Shadow Home Secretary simply because she is Female and/or Black. I wonder that that really says about you.
Diane Abbott was sacked from Miliband's cabinet because she was true to the Socialist views of the Party. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the Party Leader on certain issues. There are issues I disagree with Corbyn on as well. However, at no point did she ever try to instigate a mutiny. A Party Leader is elected by the Party Members - plain & simple. Whether you agree with it or not, it should be accepted as such. Cameron was elected by Tory Members. May was not. Anyone who goes against the Democratic decision of the Party Members has no place in a Democratic Party.
Diane Abbott was sacked from Miliband's cabinet because she was true to the Socialist views of the Party. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the Party Leader on certain issues. There are issues I disagree with Corbyn on as well. However, at no point did she ever try to instigate a mutiny. A Party Leader is elected by the Party Members - plain & simple. Whether you agree with it or not, it should be accepted as such. Cameron was elected by Tory Members. May was not. Anyone who goes against the Democratic decision of the Party Members has no place in a Democratic Party.
It has to be a bad dream.
FourPart;1501820 wrote: It sounds to me as if you are more opposed to Diane Abbott becoming Shadow Home Secretary simply because she is Female and/or Black. I wonder that that really says about you.
Diane Abbott was sacked from Miliband's cabinet because she was true to the Socialist views of the Party. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the Party Leader on certain issues. There are issues I disagree with Corbyn on as well. However, at no point did she ever try to instigate a mutiny. A Party Leader is elected by the Party Members - plain & simple. Whether you agree with it or not, it should be accepted as such. Cameron was elected by Tory Members. May was not. Anyone who goes against the Democratic decision of the Party Members has no place in a Democratic Party.
I see, anyone who opposes the appointment of Ms Abbott, has to be opposing her simply because she is black. That is rather interesting, as right now, you have no notion as to the colour of my skin and i would suggest, you show less haste in assumption, or you are at risk of not only looking a fool, but also causing offence. In Westminster, Ms Abbott does have her own catchphrase. " The race card, never leave home without it". It appears this extends to those few supporters also. It's interesting to note, no such objections even among Tories over Sadiq Khan, Kieth Vaz, or indeed, Shami Chakrabarti. Let's just take it as red, you are clutching at straws for a viable explanation.
One only has to look to Corbyn's tweet last evening to observe the very real agenda. Not only does he crow at Ms Abbott becoming the first black Shadow home secretary, he mentions it's one in the eye for Tory xenophobia. One would expect such childish mutterings from a junior, but the leader? Her appointment should have absolutely nothing to do with colour of skin nor the Tories. She should be appointed merely on her worth as qualified in the role, however, that would leave barely enough to tweet.
Your hypocrisy in your post is staggering. You are correct that Ms May was not elected as Prime Minister. As a Labour supporter, you seem to be overlooking the fact that neither was Gordon Brown. Or are you saying, that it's perfectly acceptable for Labour to instill an unelected leader, yet the same rules do not apply during a Conservative government? If you are, that makes you a hypocrite.
You state in your post " A Party Leader is elected by the Party Members - plain & simple. Whether you agree with it or not'. Your statement goes only to endorse exactly as i said prior, in that Miliband was elected as leader of the Labour Party in 2010 and Ms Abbott was sacked for disloyalty and trouble making. Or are you attempting to say that leaders are elected by the party plain and simple with MP's duty bound to support the leader, but only in the case of Corbyn, while it's perfectly acceptable for MP's to be disloyal when it's Miliband? As if you are, that makes you a hypocrite.
If you seriously believe that any leader only appoints ministers by their worth and experience, then you are naive in the extreme. All political party leaders appoint those who will back them against rebels. It's known in politics as a shield wall. This is exactly why Corbyn has sacked chief whip Rosie Winterton. It has nothing to do with her experience or worth in the job, but everything to do with, not being someone who he can rely on to be part of his shield wall. It is a highly reckless move considering she has the support of almost all Labour MP's and is set to witness a mass walk out within the whips office. It's also worth reminding that only in June, 80 % of Labour MP's backed a motion of no confidence in Corbyn.
If you seriously believe that the cabinet reshuffle is about appointing those best qualified for the job, then you are extremely naive. If you support a woman who has historically been called into question for financial irregularities, offensive racist comments, and sacked for trouble making in the party you support, then you have absolutely no argument. No doubt, you also endorse the appointment of Sarah Champion as domestic abuse Minister on the argument, that it's perfectly acceptable that she was arrested herself for domestic abuse as it was a woman beating the crap out of a man and that doesn't count.
Diane Abbott was sacked from Miliband's cabinet because she was true to the Socialist views of the Party. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the Party Leader on certain issues. There are issues I disagree with Corbyn on as well. However, at no point did she ever try to instigate a mutiny. A Party Leader is elected by the Party Members - plain & simple. Whether you agree with it or not, it should be accepted as such. Cameron was elected by Tory Members. May was not. Anyone who goes against the Democratic decision of the Party Members has no place in a Democratic Party.
I see, anyone who opposes the appointment of Ms Abbott, has to be opposing her simply because she is black. That is rather interesting, as right now, you have no notion as to the colour of my skin and i would suggest, you show less haste in assumption, or you are at risk of not only looking a fool, but also causing offence. In Westminster, Ms Abbott does have her own catchphrase. " The race card, never leave home without it". It appears this extends to those few supporters also. It's interesting to note, no such objections even among Tories over Sadiq Khan, Kieth Vaz, or indeed, Shami Chakrabarti. Let's just take it as red, you are clutching at straws for a viable explanation.
One only has to look to Corbyn's tweet last evening to observe the very real agenda. Not only does he crow at Ms Abbott becoming the first black Shadow home secretary, he mentions it's one in the eye for Tory xenophobia. One would expect such childish mutterings from a junior, but the leader? Her appointment should have absolutely nothing to do with colour of skin nor the Tories. She should be appointed merely on her worth as qualified in the role, however, that would leave barely enough to tweet.
Your hypocrisy in your post is staggering. You are correct that Ms May was not elected as Prime Minister. As a Labour supporter, you seem to be overlooking the fact that neither was Gordon Brown. Or are you saying, that it's perfectly acceptable for Labour to instill an unelected leader, yet the same rules do not apply during a Conservative government? If you are, that makes you a hypocrite.
You state in your post " A Party Leader is elected by the Party Members - plain & simple. Whether you agree with it or not'. Your statement goes only to endorse exactly as i said prior, in that Miliband was elected as leader of the Labour Party in 2010 and Ms Abbott was sacked for disloyalty and trouble making. Or are you attempting to say that leaders are elected by the party plain and simple with MP's duty bound to support the leader, but only in the case of Corbyn, while it's perfectly acceptable for MP's to be disloyal when it's Miliband? As if you are, that makes you a hypocrite.
If you seriously believe that any leader only appoints ministers by their worth and experience, then you are naive in the extreme. All political party leaders appoint those who will back them against rebels. It's known in politics as a shield wall. This is exactly why Corbyn has sacked chief whip Rosie Winterton. It has nothing to do with her experience or worth in the job, but everything to do with, not being someone who he can rely on to be part of his shield wall. It is a highly reckless move considering she has the support of almost all Labour MP's and is set to witness a mass walk out within the whips office. It's also worth reminding that only in June, 80 % of Labour MP's backed a motion of no confidence in Corbyn.
If you seriously believe that the cabinet reshuffle is about appointing those best qualified for the job, then you are extremely naive. If you support a woman who has historically been called into question for financial irregularities, offensive racist comments, and sacked for trouble making in the party you support, then you have absolutely no argument. No doubt, you also endorse the appointment of Sarah Champion as domestic abuse Minister on the argument, that it's perfectly acceptable that she was arrested herself for domestic abuse as it was a woman beating the crap out of a man and that doesn't count.
It has to be a bad dream.
I didn't say that anyone who opposes her is basing their opposition on her being black. I am saying that YOU seem to be doing so on the grounds that you are making such a big issue about it.
As far as the reshuffle is concerned - as to who is best suited for the jobs, to be honest, I have no idea. Furthermore, I have always been opposed to positive discrimination. I consider positive discrimination, by definition, as still being discrimination, and I do not agree with it. But, as I have said before, I do not agree with all of Corbyn's ideals. However, whichever way you look at it, he can't win. He pledged a 50:50 cabinet. He has achieved that. However, in so doing, due to the disproportionate balance of MPs that is not going to be representative. Furthermore, if it were deemed that all the best ones for the job were the male ones, would that be seen as being the best ones for the job or would it be seen as being sexist? No matter what you do in this world, there is going to be some sort of 'ism'. There's no way you're going to please everyone. The fact remains that he is the one who has been voted into position as the Leader of the Party & as such the decision is his to make. Plain & simple. You may not agree. I may not agree. It makes no difference. That is his job, and his right as such. That is as it is. Accept it. Ever since he came into power his popularity has soared. He must be doing something right.
As far as the reshuffle is concerned - as to who is best suited for the jobs, to be honest, I have no idea. Furthermore, I have always been opposed to positive discrimination. I consider positive discrimination, by definition, as still being discrimination, and I do not agree with it. But, as I have said before, I do not agree with all of Corbyn's ideals. However, whichever way you look at it, he can't win. He pledged a 50:50 cabinet. He has achieved that. However, in so doing, due to the disproportionate balance of MPs that is not going to be representative. Furthermore, if it were deemed that all the best ones for the job were the male ones, would that be seen as being the best ones for the job or would it be seen as being sexist? No matter what you do in this world, there is going to be some sort of 'ism'. There's no way you're going to please everyone. The fact remains that he is the one who has been voted into position as the Leader of the Party & as such the decision is his to make. Plain & simple. You may not agree. I may not agree. It makes no difference. That is his job, and his right as such. That is as it is. Accept it. Ever since he came into power his popularity has soared. He must be doing something right.
It has to be a bad dream.
FourPart;1501863 wrote: Ever since he came into power his popularity has soared. He must be doing something right.
Power? What power? In what way, shape or form, does he have power? Power to do what exactly?
Not all Labour supporters are superannuated, antiquated, dinosaurs, with a yearning to return to the crusty old days of trade unions holding Callaghan to ransom. In 2007, Labour membership dropped to an all time low of 176,000 and it saw them with 18 million worth of debt. On Gordon Brown replacing Blair, membership fell by 6,000. Membership soared and was at it's peak of 405,000 in 1997 when Blair took office. It shows that the party lost most of it's old grass roots members under new Labour.
At the moment, membership is on par with the peak when Blair took office, or marginally ahead, but it does not mean to say, that the increases in membership today, is down to the popularity of Corbyn. What it does prove, is that when a party enters into a rebirth, it attracts new membership, just as it did when new Labour came into being. Whether Corbyn manages to retain the new membership remains to be seen, but it's likely he will lose them by 2020 if he's unable to win a general election. Grass roots membership is at it's lowest and has been replaced by new Labour members joining under Blair, and new members today, joining due to Brexit.
The rise in membership began last year but it was for two reasons. To younger members and those joining at Blair's peak, the policies of returning to grass root socialism, is new. To them, it's change but it's not change. It's merely rehashing old party ideologies, but if new membership are not old enough to remember the old Labour born out of the unions, they see it as something revolutionary and an exciting new concept. Last year, new members were joining because they saw Labour as the best chance of opposing Brexit. Now Brexit have won, it will be interesting to observe whether Corbyn can retain that membership. I personally believe, they will begin to slip away during the next year when article 50 is invoked and they wake up to the fact that Corbyn can do nothing about it.
Power? What power? In what way, shape or form, does he have power? Power to do what exactly?
Not all Labour supporters are superannuated, antiquated, dinosaurs, with a yearning to return to the crusty old days of trade unions holding Callaghan to ransom. In 2007, Labour membership dropped to an all time low of 176,000 and it saw them with 18 million worth of debt. On Gordon Brown replacing Blair, membership fell by 6,000. Membership soared and was at it's peak of 405,000 in 1997 when Blair took office. It shows that the party lost most of it's old grass roots members under new Labour.
At the moment, membership is on par with the peak when Blair took office, or marginally ahead, but it does not mean to say, that the increases in membership today, is down to the popularity of Corbyn. What it does prove, is that when a party enters into a rebirth, it attracts new membership, just as it did when new Labour came into being. Whether Corbyn manages to retain the new membership remains to be seen, but it's likely he will lose them by 2020 if he's unable to win a general election. Grass roots membership is at it's lowest and has been replaced by new Labour members joining under Blair, and new members today, joining due to Brexit.
The rise in membership began last year but it was for two reasons. To younger members and those joining at Blair's peak, the policies of returning to grass root socialism, is new. To them, it's change but it's not change. It's merely rehashing old party ideologies, but if new membership are not old enough to remember the old Labour born out of the unions, they see it as something revolutionary and an exciting new concept. Last year, new members were joining because they saw Labour as the best chance of opposing Brexit. Now Brexit have won, it will be interesting to observe whether Corbyn can retain that membership. I personally believe, they will begin to slip away during the next year when article 50 is invoked and they wake up to the fact that Corbyn can do nothing about it.