FlyTheNest

frog222 wrote:

Willow904 wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Those things should all be fought for, its just that for now we will have to do it outside the EU.

Given we're no longer in the EU, that's kind of obvious. Unless you're saying Long Bailey and Nandy think Labour members are all dim-witted morons with less grasp of current affairs than a four year old, the only reason to tell people Brexit is over and they need to move on is because they have no intention of opposing and fighting the anti-immigration, full and complete break from EU institutions favoured by leave voters of the type they think Labour have lost in their northern heartlands and are desperate to win back with appeasement and a shift to more socially conservative values.

As I say, if that's not what they are intending to signal, they're going to need to choose their words far more carefully.

I was horrified that Starmer, Nandy, and RL-B were all apparently going to treat Brexit (whatever that is!) as a fact of life , a fait accompli !
barney10 @itz4kixAKA 4h ago

Good stuff on the cartoon thread

"" but now is the time to sit unequivocally & unapologetically on that fence. & let the Cons own brexit:
I think the Labour party should be making noises about rejoining if and when it all goes tits up but I get your point about keeping out of it for now.
But I don't buy this line about the conservatives owning all of Brexit. Corbyn imposed a three-line whip and was as anxious as the Tories to trigger A50.
He bears some of the blame for it, and for sitting on the fence all those years because in the final analysis he was a Leaver too. ""

https://discussion.theguardian.com/comm ... /137878737" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yeah, well, exactly ! Corbyn wasn't up to it . SO ..... admit the good things he did, and chuck him out .

Quite. Which is why for the moment, despite being a Labour member, I don’t see an obvious political home. (Vis a vis post 50)

Morning All

It's still difficult for Labour isn't it? Look at the Sunday Telegraph this morning and Johnson is already blaming the EU for reneging. Not clear what they are reneging on, but hey....

Sadly I think the only way out of this is to wait until people see the truth for themselves. That's probably what RLB is trying to do, but I agree the language is all wrong.

My first reaction is we need someone who is great in the House and will best Johnson at PMQs, but if that's happening he'll just not go. In the end, it may not make much difference who we have.

Ultimately the most hopeful way forward will probably be through local level politics and the opposition parties taking back councils that should never have been lost. So I may look closely at what the candidates are saying in that area.

Edited to remove wayward apostrophe.

I should perhaps have said I genuinely don't yet know who I'll vote for.

In the short term, there are still many questions hanging over Johnson in respect of political and financial corruption. This is potentially very significant.

And this is an example where it will be key that any attacks are not linked to anti-brexit tactics.

frog222 wrote: I was horrified that Starmer, Nandy, and RL-B were all apparently going to treat Brexit (whatever that is!) as a fact of life , a fait accompli !

Starmer has spoken out in favour of freedom of movement with the EU and I think he's got that exactly the right way round. Talk about a close trading relationship and commentators will throw up 'no single market without FoM', so stick the controversial bit up front and get it over with.

Leaving the EU is a fact of life but leaving the SM isn't. We've thrown away our influence but we don't have to throw away our international trade.

Nice tweet I saw yesterday re rule-taking 'Norway says welcome'.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote: My first reaction is we need someone who is great in the House and will best Johnson at PMQs, but if that's happening he'll just not go. In the end, it may not make much difference who we have.

Ultimately the most hopeful way forward will probably be through local level politics and the opposition parties taking back councils that should never have been lost. So I may look closely at what the candidate's are saying in that area.

The first part is important, not so much for voters as for the MSM, someone they have to take seriously would be good. I want to know what Johnson's up to, with Brexit and the constitution, and Starmer's the one to tell me.

The second part is for the Deputy imo.

I've said before, there's a good chance that whoever they pick won't last the 5 years.

Horror of horror I've noticed that apostrophe in candidate's. It was an autofill error honest!

uh oh

v uninspired by the story about block of flats in Norwich saying Happy Brexit Day anyone in this block of flats speaking a language other than the Queens [sic] English please go home.

How much hatred/ridicule is the country aiming to engender?

There was no "please " about it(Apologies if offended,important on terms of level of vileness IMHO)

I wonder IF the police have checked them for fingerprints/DNA ?

gilsey wrote: I've said before, there's a good chance that whoever they pick won't last the 5 years

This shouldn't be underestimated as a possibility.

There is a good argument that Starmer may be the best possibility for the coming year when the fallout of Brexit is still a live issue.

Beyond that, the jury is still out.

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/othe ... -in-common" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Starmer, at least, has spent some time talking about what he would like Brexit to look like. In championing freedom of movement he is firmly placing himself on the side of "remain", despite saying there is no more leave/remain, by understanding what remain supporters value about EU membership and pledging to get those benefits back. That's fighting talk. Vaguely urging people to move on isn't. Hopefully we'll hear something a bit bolder on the EU from Long Bailey and Nandy in due course.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Horror of horror I've noticed that apostrophe in candidate's. It was an autofill error honest!

You're just getting into the swing of things with "the queens English as she should be wrote".

HindleA wrote:https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/othe ... -in-common

That is a good assessment of Neil Kinnock in particular, though John Smith could at least have been mentioned.

gilsey wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote: My first reaction is we need someone who is great in the House and will best Johnson at PMQs, but if that's happening he'll just not go. In the end, it may not make much difference who we have.

Ultimately the most hopeful way forward will probably be through local level politics and the opposition parties taking back councils that should never have been lost. So I may look closely at what the candidate's are saying in that area.

The first part is important, not so much for voters as for the MSM, someone they have to take seriously would be good. I want to know what Johnson's up to, with Brexit and the constitution, and Starmer's the one to tell me.

The second part is for the Deputy imo.

I've said before, there's a good chance that whoever they pick won't last the 5 years.

I agree about needing a strong deputy leader to coordinate the local effort. I really like Angela Rayner but I'm starting to wonder if she has enough experience.

Labour seems keen to get at the front of the queue to be on the wrong side of any argument without reference to facts as they might emerge. Has a bit of a whiff of their clamouring to agree with the old thing about their being to blame for the problems with the economy.

I think that Lisa Nandy and Rebecca Long Bailey are being a bit previous (and foolish).




Edited - tidy up. Slightly.

PorFavor wrote:Labour seems keen to get at the front of the queue to be on the wrong side of any argument without reference to facts as they might emerge. Has a bit of a whiff of their clamouring to agree with the old thing about their being to blame for the problems with the economy.

I think that Lisa Nandy and Rebecca Long Bailey are being a bit previous (and foolish).




Edited - tidy up. Slightly.

Starmer has set out his stall on what he believes our future EU relationship should be with specifics. If he wins, he has a mandate to pursue a soft Brexit effectively. I fear if one of the others win, the debate within Labour about exactly what its EU position should be will just go on and on. A constant tug of war between appeasing traditional anti-immigration working class voters versus representing the pro-EU, open and progressive views of the majority of Labour members and younger voters.

I think one requirement for me will be that candidates are firmly behind the current green economy policies. This is a Tory Labour divide where I think the latter win hands down. And where those who don't support it are not ideologically against, in the main.

Am curious to understand the levels of "tidying up" that are available from PF editorial services Ltd.
eg: Post above received level "slight".

@tinyclanger2

That's Classified. Or Commercial in Confidence. (They seem to mean the same these days.)

For Labour, electability doesn’t mean becoming ‘more Tory’ (Guardian)

I agree with the general thrust - but not with some of the specifics. Views?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... candidates

Tusk: EU would be enthusiastic if Scotland applied to rejoin

Former European council president’s remarks will boost SNP’s campaign for second independence referendum (Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -to-rejoin

Yes, it will be interesting when only England isn't in the EU. And London's population's bigger than Scotland's so they could join too.
Then if Scotland or Wales could redraw their boundaries to include Liverpool, Newcastle, Manchester and Leeds we'd be laughing.

Yikes - have just had a fast-forward to a dystopian future where the English are readily recognised by their wearing of union jack suits. (despite the fact that the union around which the jack is built no longer exists).

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ur-members" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've been watching Sky TV news. By now, I should think that poor old Streatham has got the messsage that it's a "non-iconic" location.

PorFavor wrote:

For Labour, electability doesn’t mean becoming ‘more Tory’ (Guardian)

I agree with the general thrust - but not with some of the specifics. Views?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... candidates

I liked the article but am puzzled by the author finding Long-Bailey as having the best reading of present and recent history, and understanding best how public opinion is formed and what it means. The single example given indicating Long-Bailey's political nous was her having voted against Tory austerity cuts in 2015 rather than abstaining. Has Long-Bailey done or said anything recently demonstrating a grasp on current events and public opinion? I don't know.

I'm leaning towards Starmer for Labour leader but it's only a guess. I learn from you all, of course. Gilsey's recent posts are particularly helpful to me now.

Given the political theatre and media realities of the current time, I wonder how effective or relevant it is for Labour tacking left or right is relevant. Policies seem less important than effectively managing a media image. The following is what any anti-Tory party is up against.

There is no objective science of electability, to which the right has found the answer and the left has not. The Tories’ greatest strengths lie in being ruthless (even to one another when necessary), in having vastly greater material wealth and donations at their disposal, and in exploiting their cosy relationship with media and business. Above all, they win by being aligned with the interests of wealth and power.

Most important is effectively countering a media image created and imposed on any Labour leader and the Labour party by interests hostile to a Labour government. The Tory party isn't protecting the interests of most people they've been elected to represent. People need clarity about the who's in charge and have been for the last decade. Labour must make the realities of harmful Tory legislation vividly clear and unequivocal. Find Tory party weaknesses, find where they've the least defence, get in there and effectively take them down in the eyes and minds of the general public. Clear, simple, relevant, consistent messages distilled from good Labour policies juxtaposed to demonstrably damaging Tory policy and legislation can win Labour the hearts and minds of people. Labour must be the party people like, identify with and believe their best interests are protects by Labour.

tinyclanger2 wrote:Yes, it will be interesting when only England isn't in the EU. And London's population's bigger than Scotland's so they could join too.
Then if Scotland or Wales could redraw their boundaries to include Liverpool, Newcastle, Manchester and Leeds we'd be laughing.

Why not? Good idea. Tories know about protecting personal interests. They can hardly blame others doing the same.

Sorry about my atrocious grammatical errors. I edited in haste.

Norwich residents hold anti-racism protest at 'Brexit day' poster

Police investigate ‘shameful’ flyer stuck to doors on all 15 floors of tower block
(Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... day-poster

Stay together, Labour & other anti-Tory people. Tories can stay together with us all if they want but they'll have to share, be honest and make restitution for their mistakes in order to take part in civilisation.

PorFavor wrote:

Norwich residents hold anti-racism protest at 'Brexit day' poster

Police investigate ‘shameful’ flyer stuck to doors on all 15 floors of tower block
(Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... day-poster

I don't understand what satisfaction could be found writing, printing and posting those fliers.

HindleA wrote:https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/othe ... -in-common

At first when Kinnock took on his party, he appeared to acquire greater authority. Commentators praised his “courage.” But soon he noted that much of the media wanted a “shoot-out at the OK Corral” every week of the year. After he lost for the second time in 1992, he reflected that voters saw a leader at war with his party, not a prime ministerial figure. His most famous speech at the 1985 party conference, in which he attacked Militant-led Liverpool for hiring taxis to deliver redundancy notices to its own workers, illustrates why.

In the same speech he made a considered explanation as to why it was possible for government to intervene in new and different ways, and raised the possibility of an “enabling state” which helped people realise their potential, countering Thatcher’s portrayal of the state as stifling constraint on “freedom.” But no one noticed because when conflict rages it will command the headlines.

What commanded the headlines prevented people noticing what the hell was going on. Warped media portrayals conned people into believing Thatcher's lies about government and household economics being the same. Media ignored Kinnock's valuable reflection government has the legitimate authority, resources and statutory responsibility helping everyone reach their potential which strengthens and enriches the entire nation. Headline writers published Kinnock's Labour party factional disputes instead.

Headlines about Labour party disagreements and Tory lies published as truth continue. UK media hasn't changed it's intention it's only using technological advances and more sophisticated psychological manipulation techniques convincing as many people as possible giving their rights away is freedom.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... l-overhaul" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


"an obsession with the producers of public services, rather than the citizens for whom those services are for, together served to frighten rather than inspire the public. Recycling the policies of the 1970s proved neither radical nor transformative"

Overstated ,but certainly the impression on my areas of interest was largely a return to a mythical past without much of at all acknowledgement as to the manner in which the State /worker control can be fundamentally anti-independence enhancing,any real "radicalism" was very much at the edges and should have been at the forefront and that is before the blatant ageism and sexism in proposed implementation terms

citizenJA wrote:

PorFavor wrote:

Norwich residents hold anti-racism protest at 'Brexit day' poster

Police investigate ‘shameful’ flyer stuck to doors on all 15 floors of tower block
(Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... day-poster

I don't understand what satisfaction could be found writing, printing and posting those fliers.

And @ hindle and TC higher up the page - in one those 'okay, I'm old' things it still surprises me how much time has passed since Iived there, but a long long time ago- early to mid 90s - the area around where that block is was a little BNP enclave in Norwich. The organisation and will that went into distributing those could have even been the kind of main family that this kind of far right organisation is often driven by (it's one family where I live now, too).

tinyclanger2 wrote:Yikes - have just had a fast-forward to a dystopian future where the English are readily recognised by their wearing of union jack suits. (despite the fact that the union around which the jack is built no longer exists).

I was reading something tangentially about this the other day - the union flag predates the Act of Union. It was created for James VI coronation as James I, and whilst it didn't take its current form for about another 200 years, there's a good argument that whilst the monarch remains the Queen of England and Scotland it shouldn't change.

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article ... estigation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A CHARITY that responded to Jeremy Corbyn’s election defeat by saying that “the beast is slain” is reportedly under investigation by the third-sector watchdog.

Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) has been reported to the Charity Commission for heading a number of anti-Labour campaigns.

The complaint, made by Green Party home-affairs spokesman Shahrar Ali, accused the group of failing to be independent of party politics — a requirement under law for charities.

Mr Ali’s complaint centres on comments made by CAA’s head of political investigations, Joe Glasman, in a video published shortly after the 2019 election result.

I wonder why it is a Green doing this rather than the Labour Party ?

Welcome news tho !

I love you all.
Goodnight.
cJA

citizenJA wrote:I don't understand what satisfaction could be found writing, printing and posting those fliers.

That's because you're CJA. And long may you not understand such things.

The Left of the Labour party had two chances to provide evidence of their electoral popularity.

They have singularly and spectacularly failed.

And left us at the whims of the most right wing government this country has ever known.

Thanks for that.

You dicks.

Corbyn's Labour has left us all having to deal with the shit he never had the brains or inclination to sweep under the carpet or confront.

He's tainted the British left for years to come.

Fuck him.

What the left needs is a strong leader and once again I offer my services.

I absolutely wouldn't be a genocidal bastard.

[youtube]zWpf2UezWp8[/youtube]

Went to see her last Tuesday.

Her bassist was Belgian.

I don't want to live in a smaller world.