Tuesday, 9th August 2016

[AnatolyKasparov]

Shawcroft is horrible (and this at least is something I have been consistent on down the years) but Akehurst has done himself few favours recently (I have voted for him in the past)

[RogerOThornhill]

A question.

Can an MP resign when the Commons is in recess?

I know it's only wiki but this seems to suggest that they can't.

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

Notice and orders

An MP applies for the office to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who usually then signs a warrant appointing the MP to the crown position. The appointee holds the office until such time as another MP is appointed, or they apply to be released. Sometimes this can be a matter of minutes, as on an occasion when three or more MPs apply on the same day. Once released, they are again free to seek election to the House of Commons.

When an MP is appointed to the post, the Treasury releases a public notice: "The Chancellor of the Exchequer has this day appointed [named individual] to be Steward and Bailiff of the Three Hundreds of Chiltern."[13]

After the Speaker has been notified, the appointment and resulting disqualification is noted in the Vote and Proceedings, the Commons' daily journal of proceedings:

Notification, laid upon the Table by the Speaker, That Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer had today appointed [named individual], Member for [named constituency], to the office of Steward and Bailiff of the Three Hundreds of Chiltern.[14]

[AnatolyKasparov]

I'm sure byelections have been called during the summer recess, but only caused by deaths rather than resignation?

(Eastbourne in 1990 maybe being the best known example)

[RogerOThornhill]

I'm sure byelections have been called during the summer recess, but only caused by deaths rather than resignation?

(Eastbourne in 1990 maybe being the best known example)

Yes but it looks as though it's the Commons procedure that has to be adhered to which would be the issue here.

[SpinningHugo]

Blairite speaks out on Trotsyist (ite?) entryists

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AnatolyKasparov]

Sion Simon elected as Labour's candidate for the West Midlands mayoral thingy.

An........interesting character

[PorFavor]

Oh, God. Here we go, again.

Trotskyists 'twisting arms' of young Labour members to back Corbyn, Watson says

Labour’s deputy leader claims hard-left ‘old hands’ are not interested in winning elections and will destroy the party (Guardian)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... tom-watson

Edited to add -

Sorry - SpinningHugo got there first.

(And subsequently edited again to add "Edited to add" - just in case the edit klaxon is now active)

[RogerOThornhill]

Blairite speaks out on Trotsyist (ite?) entryists

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Since when is Tom Watson a Blairite?

[JonnyT1234]

I hear that they make them eat muesli and wear sandals too. Horrible how they're manipulating our young, brainless, unthinking morons (to paraphrase Tom Watson).

[JonnyT1234]

Blairite speaks out on Trotsyist (ite?) entryists

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Since when is Tom Watson a Blairite?

I believe Hugo was being ironic.

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/ ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Homage to George Orwell: BBC statue wins planning permission
Broadcaster’s former employee who left on bad terms will return as a lifesize bronze sculpture outside London headquarters

[citizenJA]

Good-afternoon, everyone.

[SpinningHugo]

Full interview with Watson here

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -hug-shout" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(and yes, Blairite was a (unsubtle, unfunny) joke.

Pretty clear to me his professional relationship with Corbyn is over.

1. He predicts an early election, and the Tories to have a bigger majority after an easy campaign.

2. "I’ve never been a very good fixer. " Quite.

As a Bitterite, my sympathy for Watson's situation is somewhat limited.

[Willow904]

Ann Black was one of the people on the NEC who voted for the cut off, I believe, and has just been voted back on, at the top of the list with over 100,000 votes. We get what we vote for, perhaps?

Anyhow, setting the terms and conditions for leadership contests falls to the NEC and clearly includes setting a cut off of some sort. Something more proportionate would have been defendable, such as two months matching the provisional period, or once a leadership challenge happened. Quite where 6 months came from is still a mystery. One issue that has come out of this is that the people running the website don't appear to be talking to the NEC and vice versa. It should be clear on the website that rules for leadership contests can vary and I'm surprised it wasn't as there will always be some kind of cut off at some point. Not that I'm trying to defend the 6 months, just wondering why the website wasn't more professional in protecting the party from litigation.

We don't know how Ann Black voted, unfortunately, as the ballot was secret. It would be surprising if she did vote for the six-month cut-off if she's as much a Corbyn supporter as everyone seems to think, but we'll never know.

Wasn't the text on the website added in response to queries from members or would-be members? My recent experience with the administrative side of the party is not at all good, but I imagine their workload is unbelievable right now.

I'm taking her stance from her own explanation of her position in the infamous NEC meeting that someone posted here a while back and which led to Momentum sort of withdrawing, but not withdrawing, their endorsement for her. I may have remembered incorrectly, but I'm pretty sure she said she supported the early cut off. I'll check.

[RogerOThornhill]

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/ ... are_btn_tw


Homage to George Orwell: BBC statue wins planning permission
Broadcaster’s former employee who left on bad terms will return as a lifesize bronze sculpture outside London headquarters

The Ministry of Truth...

I think of that every time I go into the library...

[Willow904]

Phew! I haven't libelled anyone:

http://labourlist.org/2016/07/labours-l ... uspension/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The group last night published a statement saying that while it was “too late to disrupt the current election”, they would not support Black’s candidacy in future. They have since clarified that they will continue to support the full slate for this election.

The move comes after Black backed a number of controversial NEC decisions recently, including supporting a six-month freeze date on members voting in the leadership contest, and overseeing the suspension of Brighton, Hove & District Labour Party following reports of hostility at meetings.

Though it was the LRC that withdrew/not withdrew support, rather than Momentum as such. Pretty much the same people, though, of course.

[pk1]

Thanks HindleA soon then

As for Shawcroft - her nastiness doesn't stop at Luke Akehurst:



Nasty woman.

I'm not altogether sure that if someone called me 'rancid' that I would brush it off as a "mild insult" but each to their own

[yahyah]

There was also this, leading to groups like Momentum withdrawing future support for Black.

http://labourlist.org/2016/07/labours-l ... uspension/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mbc1955]

Hebrews 13:8

[ephemerid]

Bored with Labour's shenanigans.

So I'm concentrating on the "Troubled Families Programme" - which, as anyone who knows anything about Louise Casey will not be surprised to discover, is a resounding failure in the same mould as her rough sleepers unit (fail, with lies on top), anti-social behaviour unit and "respect" task force (fail again)......the woman has failed at every well-paid high-status job she has been gifted by witless politicians who are impressed with her ability to blow hr own trumpet.
Her report on the failings of Rotherham Council childrens' services was criticised for a lack of rigour and a methodology so obscure it barely qualified as research; the report that she offered for the TFP was absolute rubbish, would have failed a Sociology A-level, and read like it had been made up on the hoof. Which it probably was.

The families identified for the TFP were required to fulfil five of seven criteria, culled from an old paper on "problem" families - which the original authors had long since decided were no longer as relevant as they were, and which were intended as indicators of the deprivation that can cause families to develop problems as opposed to indicators of families who cause trouble.
Undaunted by this, the seven criteria were applied by Casey, and they are: no parent in the family is in work; the family lives in overcrowded housing; no parent has any educational qualifications; the mother has mental health problems (only the mother - dad can be mad as fish); at least one parent has a long-standing limiting illness, disability, or infirmity; the family income is lower than 60% of the median; the family cannot afford certain food or clothing items. She threw in a bit of domestic violence and drug/alcohol abuse too.

The DCLG insisted that their criteria were as above plus - families involved in youth crime or anti-social behaviour; families in which the children are regularly truanting from school or have been excluded; families in which a parent is claiming an out-of-work benefit; and families who cost the public sector large amounts of money.
This was assessed by an unsubstantiated claim from the DCLG that "troubled families" cost £9 Billion a year; FOI requests on how that figure had been calculated were refused. The (also unsubstantiated) theory that there were 120,000 such families each costing the taxpayer £75,000 PA or more was the basis for the TFP.

Ruth Levitas (who is a proper sociologist) has written extensively about this, and was saying in 2014 that the whole thing simply made no sense.
There's some good stuff at http://www.poverty.ac.uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; about it.

The criteria used were nonsense, the figures were nonsense, Casey's report was even more nonsense - no wonder it's a complete failure. When people are ill, disabled, short of cash, live in poor housing, can't work, survive on benefits, and have all manner of complicated problems, a few months of work from some twerp with a target isn't going to do much good; and to cap it all, the families involved have most likely already got healthcare professionals, social work professionals, education professionals, police/probation professionals, and various local authority and benefits caseworkers involved already.

Still, someone gets a bung, La Casey gets a gong, and Cameron can pretend he cared.

[yahyah]

Ann Black was one of the people on the NEC who voted for the cut off, I believe, and has just been voted back on, at the top of the list with over 100,000 votes. We get what we vote for, perhaps?

Anyhow, setting the terms and conditions for leadership contests falls to the NEC and clearly includes setting a cut off of some sort. Something more proportionate would have been defendable, such as two months matching the provisional period, or once a leadership challenge happened. Quite where 6 months came from is still a mystery. One issue that has come out of this is that the people running the website don't appear to be talking to the NEC and vice versa. It should be clear on the website that rules for leadership contests can vary and I'm surprised it wasn't as there will always be some kind of cut off at some point. Not that I'm trying to defend the 6 months, just wondering why the website wasn't more professional in protecting the party from litigation.

We don't know how Ann Black voted, unfortunately, as the ballot was secret. It would be surprising if she did vote for the six-month cut-off if she's as much a Corbyn supporter as everyone seems to think, but we'll never know.

Wasn't the text on the website added in response to queries from members or would-be members? My recent experience with the administrative side of the party is not at all good, but I imagine their workload is unbelievable right now.

We do know how she voted, written by Black herself.

http://www.labourinternational.net/ann_ ... _july_2016" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ephemerid]

Hebrews 13:8

Lovely!

"......the same yesterday, today, and forever....."

[yahyah]

Thanks HindleA soon then

As for Shawcroft - her nastiness doesn't stop at Luke Akehurst:



Nasty woman.

I'm not altogether sure that if someone called me 'rancid' that I would brush it off as a "mild insult" but each to their own

It would help if prominent Labour people, whichever part of the party they are part of, resisted those kind of public utterances.

The 'ice cream' thing about Smith is no better than the right wing media [and some supposedly on the left] banging on about Ed M and the bacon sandwich slowed down film pic.

Glad to see you back here PK, the more the merrier.

[yahyah]

Hebrews 13:8

Blimey, has Hugo developed a halo ?

[yahyah]

Sorry I couldn't cut and paste the Black Nec statement, still haven't, and probably never will sort out Windows 10.

edited to add, or type properly.

[utopiandreams]

Sorry, ephe, to hark back but yet another view from Ellie Mae O'Hagan who at least has been mixing with Momentum: Corbyn supporters are not delusional Leninists but ordinary, fed-up voters (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... r-politics). Am I allowed to confuse Trotskyists with Leninists?

There are simply not enough delusional Leninists in Britain to make up the entirety of Corbyn’s support – these are ordinary British voters who want radical solutions to a growing number of crises.

[yahyah]

It would be nice to have radical solutions put forward in an effective way.

That's my opinion by the way, so no need to tell me how wrong I am.

[JonnyT1234]

We do know how she voted, written by Black herself.

http://www.labourinternational.net/ann_ ... _july_2016" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Small point of order but that doesn't tell us how she voted. It tells us that she supported having a cutoff and proposed a less onerous one of 24 June, but that was defeated. However, it's only inferred by what follows that she subsequently supported the 6 month cutoff but it is not explicitly stated leaving it a little ambiguous.

[utopiandreams]

I'll just add that I don't see Corbyn as ideal in many ways but he had appointed others to act in areas that he may have been weak. It seems to me that some if not many of them simply followed Cameron's lead and ran away. No more on this topic from me as I'm not even a member of the Labour party.

Edit: typo

[pk1]

Thanks yahyah - sadly, I expect it to be a short visit.

It saddens me to see the repeated attacks on people like Hugo. Whatever people think of where he sits on the left-right scale, he used to be a party member & is now one of many lost to the party. Doubtless there will be people thinking that he's well rid of & the many thousands that have now joined more than replace him but I don't like seeing anybody leaving our party - their vote is crucial at election time.

This was originally set-up as a haven for left-leaning people who no longer wanted to or had been banned for whatever reason from posting at the Graun. It was never meant to be a place where personal insults were traded & posters were ganged up against.

Some calm & reflection before posting wouldn't go amiss at times

[ephemerid]

Hebrews 13:8

Blimey, has Hugo developed a halo ?

No chance.

He can't even develop an argument....

[Temulkar]

Blairite speaks out on Trotsyist (ite?) entryists

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Since when is Tom Watson a Blairite?

To anyone who was in the LPYS at its demise, TW is unquestionably one of 'the project's' hatchet men, even if he was more of a Brown acolyte.

[Willow904]

Thanks yahyah - sadly, I expect it to be a short visit.

It saddens me to see the repeated attacks on people like Hugo. Whatever people think of where he sits on the left-right scale, he used to be a party member & is now one of many lost to the party. Doubtless there will be people thinking that he's well rid of & the many thousands that have now joined more than replace him but I don't like seeing anybody leaving our party - their vote is crucial at election time.

This was originally set-up as a haven for left-leaning people who no longer wanted to or had been banned for whatever reason from posting at the Graun. It was never meant to be a place where personal insults were traded & posters were ganged up against.

Some calm & reflection before posting wouldn't go amiss at times

I completely agree with your sentiments of being welcoming and polite to all comers with left leaning views. I believe the main requisite to posting here is being basically in opposition to the Tories and the right wing in general.

I would, however, observe, very politely of course, that SH chose the name Spinning Hugo and I assume they didn't choose it for nothing, if you get my drift.

I miss the contributions of Tubby Isaacs though, particularly, and hope they make a reappearance when May gives us something concrete to get our teeth into.

[pk1]

Start deselecting MP's & watch our party die

edit: no idea why the image didn't load but regardless, here's what the tweet by Kevin Schofield, said:

New Labour NEC member Rhea Wolfson says there needs to be "a conversation" about mandatory reselection of MPs. Fancy that ...

[utopiandreams]

By the by my not being a member of the Labour party was no veiled dig at SH. It was only after I posted that I realised it could be taken that way since I often speak between the lines, not that I took pk as referring to me.

[RogerOThornhill]

This was originally set-up as a haven for left-leaning people who no longer wanted to or had been banned for whatever reason from posting at the Graun. It was never meant to be a place where personal insults were traded & posters were ganged up against.

Some calm & reflection before posting wouldn't go amiss at times

Of course, but I for one get bored with the conversation being steered towards Corbyn all the time which seems to be what happens.

[utopiandreams]

True, ROT, but it's up to you whether or not you bite.

Edit: I realise now that I missed an opportunity to call you Rotty.

[yahyah]

Am trying to follow the spirit of your last paragraph PK.

Spending more time doing hobbies and chores, rather than feeling irked at the constant barrage of attempts to undermine people just for daring to have an opinion, is proving fruitful.

Watching the [few] butterflies is more life enhancing than getting intertwined with those who think you are wrong.

[mbc1955]

Thanks yahyah - sadly, I expect it to be a short visit.

It saddens me to see the repeated attacks on people like Hugo. Whatever people think of where he sits on the left-right scale, he used to be a party member & is now one of many lost to the party. Doubtless there will be people thinking that he's well rid of & the many thousands that have now joined more than replace him but I don't like seeing anybody leaving our party - their vote is crucial at election time.

This was originally set-up as a haven for left-leaning people who no longer wanted to or had been banned for whatever reason from posting at the Graun. It was never meant to be a place where personal insults were traded & posters were ganged up against.

Some calm & reflection before posting wouldn't go amiss at times

There is a persistently disruptive and destructive poster on this board who has made it plain in their posts that they have no concern for the other posters here, that he regards us as deluded and infantile, in need of his constant correction, and that our beliefs and opinions are nonsensical. Daily, he derails discussion, directing it into the one divisive topic he returns to over and over and over.

And you're sad that this has been noticed and is being called out? I am reminded of the Northern soul classic, 'The Snake', by Al Wilson. I commend its lyrics to you.

And yet again I see there is no point even reading the rest of the board for today. Congratulations, Agent Hugo, another successful mission.

[SpinningHugo]

Sorry, ephe, to hark back but yet another view from Ellie Mae O'Hagan who at least has been mixing with Momentum: Corbyn supporters are not delusional Leninists but ordinary, fed-up voters (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... r-politics). Am I allowed to confuse Trotskyists with Leninists?

There are simply not enough delusional Leninists in Britain to make up the entirety of Corbyn’s support – these are ordinary British voters who want radical solutions to a growing number of crises.

Similar 'down with the natives' piece in the LRB

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n16/tom-crewe/we-are-many" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


I do think Corbynism is fascinating. I'll never 'get' it of course, as both many of the policies and all of the politics of it makes no sense to me, but as a phenomenon it is the most interesting thing I've ever seen in politics, overturning all the old certitudes. Seems very white, middle class and London-centric though. The numbers who voted fro burnham in Manchester were relatively tiny when compared to a modern London CLP. For me he crosses half a dozen redlines (eg his views on the IRA to take an easy example) but these don't seem to bother most of his supporters even slightly.

At a personal level I've found it unpleasant. i had to leave Labour, partly I admit because of the way my CLP had gone. I had been a member (with a gap) for decades). On here, and elsewhere, the Bitterite 4.5%ers like me are pariahs, and that is not a comfortable thing to be.

[RogerOThornhill]

This is related to grammar schools and the call for a kickstart to social mobility that this may or may not bring....I'm sure that Michael Rose won't mind me reposting as I thought it of interest.

A few queries about 'social mobility'.
This is bandied around like its a necessary social good. I'm always suspicious when the Right talk about something that seems egalitarian as if it's good as they spend a lot of time berating the Left for being egalitarian. So, the social mobility they're talking about must be within the status quo, presumably. Assuming a fairly constant population, then 'social mobility' must mean 'less advantaged people' (as they would put it) moving upwards socially to replace usually more advantaged people. Again, presumably, they mean they do this by virtue of their ability thereby replacing those in that position not by virtue of their ability.

Grammar schools - like the one Theresa May went to and which, she believes enabled her to compete with the toffs - need to come back so that people like her (she believes) can properly compete with the toffs again, and, presumably, replace toffs at the top.

However, the social mobility that people talk about in relation to the grammar schools of my era (1944-1970) are usually talking about 'bright' working class boys and girls who moved upwards into administration and professional jobs where before people of that background hardly figured. This social mobility hardly involved replacement (along the lines I described in previous paragraphs). What happened were two things: the administrative and professional layers and experienced some losses due to two World Wars, and - even more importantly, this was an expanding economy. In other words, there were gaps that needed filling.

So in the here and now, which is the social mobility they're offering: 'replace the toffs'? or 'move into the gaps'? Or both?

And where is the evidence that either of these processes needs segregation at 11 to achieve that?

So...there was a golden age of social mobility brought about by external factors while in a stable economic environment it is not likely to any large degree?

[yahyah]

Welsh AM & MEP Nathan Gill has not been expelled from Ukip, either because of the need for unity in the party, or to save the Kippers from having to repay £60,000 that the EU has already allocated to Ukip.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/polit ... n-11723110" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Willow904]

Ann Black was one of the people on the NEC who voted for the cut off, I believe, and has just been voted back on, at the top of the list with over 100,000 votes. We get what we vote for, perhaps?

Anyhow, setting the terms and conditions for leadership contests falls to the NEC and clearly includes setting a cut off of some sort. Something more proportionate would have been defendable, such as two months matching the provisional period, or once a leadership challenge happened. Quite where 6 months came from is still a mystery. One issue that has come out of this is that the people running the website don't appear to be talking to the NEC and vice versa. It should be clear on the website that rules for leadership contests can vary and I'm surprised it wasn't as there will always be some kind of cut off at some point. Not that I'm trying to defend the 6 months, just wondering why the website wasn't more professional in protecting the party from litigation.

We don't know how Ann Black voted, unfortunately, as the ballot was secret. It would be surprising if she did vote for the six-month cut-off if she's as much a Corbyn supporter as everyone seems to think, but we'll never know.

Wasn't the text on the website added in response to queries from members or would-be members? My recent experience with the administrative side of the party is not at all good, but I imagine their workload is unbelievable right now.

I wonder who signed the change to the wording on the website off?

[JonnyT1234]

But I have zero sympathy with those in the party who have been utterly unwilling to engage with Corbyn supporters, and who have not reflected on why they lost control of their party to someone they so clearly regard as useless. There are simply not enough delusional Leninists in Britain to make up the entirety of Corbyn’s support – these are ordinary British voters who want radical solutions to a growing number of crises. And until they are listened to and taken seriously, Corbyn and the movement keeping him in power is not going anywhere.

Or, if you are Tom Watson, the best way to communicate with them is by labelling them naïve, brainless morons who can't tell their Trots from their Tories, and because of their brainless naïvety, they're going to 'destroy the Labour Party' (TM). That's always going to work well and isn't at all antagonistic.

My drum that I frequently bang, but this is what I've been saying all along, has anyone in the PLP actually stopped and thought just once, what is it that these people are supporting? The answer has never, ever been 'Corbyn'.

[HindleA]

Average age of people joining the Labour Party is 51,apparently,bloody naive youngsters,they haven't even lived yet.

[utopiandreams]

But have they ever been members of other parties, A?

[howsillyofme1]

Good afternoon

I do admit to being somewhat perplexed by some of the posts on here - it doesn't mean I am right of course but I fail to see some things

The Labour Party is undergoing a tranformative change, mainly due to a reaction after losing two elections in a row and seemingly having no direction apart from a perceived desire to triangulate and allow the Tories to set the agenda

I was a fan of Ed Miliband, and a supporter of him. I accepted his weaknesses and thought they were outweighed by the positive. he was though undermined by the press (I still am a firm believer that his unequivocal support for Leveson was a major reason for the personal attacks, followed by some strategic errors on how to approach the Scottish referendum).

Miliband was also undermined by people within his own party, and you have to admit most of those were coming from the right wing of the party. Yes, the left were not completely virtuous either but the bulk of it was coming from the right wing media and anonymous sources.

The Labour Party membership reacted to this, aided by the incoming new memebers...we have to remember though in 2015 there was no mad rush of new members and Corbyn still carried the full members as well as everything else.

The message was clear to me - a change of direction and a clarity of purpose was wanted by the membership....this still needs to be delivered to the electorate but at least the party was giving a voice to those who did not want further drifting. The assumption seems to be that any of the other three candidates would have put us in a stronger position now....I, for one, am not convinced about that at all

Corbyn is far from the ideal leader as I have said so many times on this board that it is getting boring to have to repeat myself. I also want to say that I have no great issue with Owen Smith but do have issues with trust and don't think he will be able to take us in the right direction. If he wins then fine and I would keep my fingers crossed he follows through on his rhetoric.

I do already hear the siren voices though after his first few months 'but how can he speak to the English voters on Nuneaton - the man is a Welshman with left wing views that are not relevant in today's England' etc. etc. etc. The same voices targetting Brown, Miliband and Corbyn (yes, Corbyn was only the third in line to be attacked from within).

I have read many posts here over the last few months and personally do not see why people who do not see Corbyn as the leader feel the need to insinuate we are 'cultists' or 'entryists'....AK is clear as to why he is unlikely to support Corbyn and I do not any issue with that at all...he is very persuasive in his arguments

There are some people on here who feel strongly one way or another but that is the nature of politics. There is also the added complication of the Brexit vote which has again caused a lot of passion - some people are far more accusing and blaming of Corbyn for the referendum loss than I am - that is their prerogative but I have also sensed a certain amount of animosity against those of us who take that view and try to articulate alternatives

I do detect at times some posters are quite happy to accuse others of doing the same that they do - possibly unconciously which can engender a little frustration when accusations are flying around

I have political differences with many on this board, and I am also occasionally over-stepping the mark of politeness (in defense sometimes in reaction to others.....) but until recently that never caused any issues.

The combination of Brexit and the shambolic state of the party have created this state of uncertainty and I hope we can all take a step back and count to ten before being too provocative or being offended

There is one poster on here though who has continually tried to provoke and has been banned numerous times from CiF....I have doiubts about their motives and so refrain, whenever possible, from engaging. That is only one though...the rest, in general, are people I enjoy engaging with and respect

[HindleA]

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/09/british- ... rants.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


British Government called on to bring back war time patrols to halt illegal immigrants.

[utopiandreams]

Speaking of have they lived, A, I gather home ownership or even kids are getting less and less likely before middle age. I had a sojourn on property websites earlier and did wonder about splashing out what I have left of my meagre pension. It seems Seffy Park or thereabouts isn't so far out of reach, though not quite Mossley Hill Drive I concur.

Seriously though I am thinking of helping out my lads. I can starve as far as they're concerned.

[HindleA]

I don't enjoy engaging and have zero respect for anybody here including myself.I don't believe in such discrimination.