UKC

As Corbyn is as useful as a fish with tits, can we not get a petition to get the better millipede bro to come back to the UK and form a proper opposition.

Its a very sad state of affairs that the most credible candidate I could think of to do this job isnt even living in this country.

I now yearn that we end up with a sound governing party with an opposition up to the label of its role.

And a hope that the whining horror up north to shut her trap, stop making things more complicated and even more unstable. She really should be shamed for using this chaos to further her own ideology.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

D Milliband has moved onto greener pastures however the good news for Britian is that T Blair has recognised the need for a world class negotiator and statesman to lead the Brexit discussions ... I wonder who he has in mind (for an adequate consideration of course).

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

you're just yearning for the "grown-ups" to come back! (The thought had ocurred to me too )

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

You've had worse ideas.

Re Sturgeon - contagion that I hadn't anticpated was McGuiness demanding the same treatment for N Ireland. And we've seen what can happen when Republicans believe they have a 'just cause.' If Sturgeon gets anywhere towards 'self-determination', that provides a massive de-stabilising factor in N Ireland, let alone some other parts of Europe.

But that's just scaremongering, let's all keep our fingers crossed instead, that usually works doesn't it?

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

In your opinion.

I hope that Sturgeon puts the interests of my country (of which 62% of the people voted to remain) at the forefront of EU negotiations. And from what I see so far, she's doing a not bad job.

Meanwhile the Tory party rips itself apart, and Boris shits his pants and fecks off into the distance.

In reply to drunken monkey:

meh. i'm tempted to sign up to labour with all this unwarrented Corbyn-bashing..

In reply to malk:

If enough people join the Labour Party and vote for Corbyn maybe 3/4 of its MPs and most of its voters will migrate to an alternative, possibly new, party that actually represents their views and conceivably becomes electable as a result.

In reply to drunken monkey:


Fixed that for you.

Edit: I'm a Remainer btw

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:


I can't imagine why you believe this will solve much. David Milliband is just another archetypical liberal elite establishment politician that the referendum just voted against. Frankly, if it weren't for tribal loyalties, David Cameron could probably sit within his cabinet and visa versa. Sure, he'd get the PLP onside, and probably win votes for the Labour party but the "disenfranchised" would just feel even more disenfranchised.

In reply to Postmanpat:

One thing I do wonder. People say the referendum result was a protest vote etc However it seems many of these people not only don't like the elite (assumedly including the majority of the conservatives), but they've gone sour on Labour and Corbyn is also not to their liking as a personality / leader.

I wonder how many of these votes for independence actually favour UKIP as a party now.

In reply to john arran:

who would vote for a tory-lite party backed by the likes of Blair?

In reply to malk:

I like corbyn but he's incompetent and will not win an election unless the tories become actual fascists. This is a shame as his economic stuff is very good policy work by serious main stream economists and would help the UK a lot.

I would vote for Angela eagle. She's not a blairite. She's principled and clearly very bright. Hopefully she'd keep the good stuff and unite the party.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Angela Eagle for president

In reply to CurlyStevo:


A large number I should think. They don't like the "establishment" whether they are posh Etonian liberals or snobbish Nulabour metropolitan liberals. They don't like Corbyn because he is essentially a metropolitan liberal, albeit a socialst one.

They could never bring themselves to vote Tory, but they could vote "out". A lot of UKIP's domestic policies are actually quite left wing so having voted "out" they may feel emboldened to vote UKIP.

In reply to Fraser:



Your fix is incorrect. the 62% was a percentage of those who voted. Only 67% of those eligible to vote actually did so.

In reply to graeme jackson:

Yes, sorry you're quite right. Got a bit brain fuddled there!

In reply to Fraser:

fair point

In reply to drunken monkey:




To be fair to Boris, it was his 'supporters' who fecked off, and left him with no option but to back out, or to stand for PM and be humiliated.

In reply to Jim C:


Mere humiliation is better than the piece of shit deserves. He should be facing charges.
Jk

In reply to jkarran:



Is it because he is a Turk that you don't like him?

In reply to Jim C:
WTF?

I expect it's abundantly clear to anyone who cares to look back through my previous posts why I dislike him. He's a lying C*nt who's ruined our country in a failed bid for personal power. Reason enough to dislike someone in my book. Not sure what you think you're playing at to be honest.
Jk

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

You have to wonder what would have happened if David had beaten Ed for the leadership, maybe not a labour govt, but if the tories hadnt won a majority at the last election we wouldn't have had a referendum for a start.

Will we see DM making a comeback ? There's a by-election coming up, but given that the other parties have already said they won't contest it, it might be considered poor taste for such a big name to take the seat.

In reply to jkarran:

Now you know what it feels like to be wrongly accused.

As a leaver I have been accused of racism ( amongst other things)
I would need to check back your post to see if you were one of them was you( but that is backward looking)

Sadly, there is quite a bit of bullying at work of leavers, such that some are not prepared to discuss the subject.
( most of these are English people in a Scottish office arguing amongst themselves)

In reply to Jim C:
I think lots of brexiters get confused between:

1. Complaints about a racist campaign, and some racist brexiters

2. Calling all brexiters racist and stupid.

Ps. Be interested to see any remainers on here arguing 2.

In reply to malk:

I would.

The hard left is unelectable and full of morons, even if I do agree with some of the principles (but not all). I would love to see a new party emerge that is pragmatic and pursues policies to grow the economy in order to rake in taxes to deliver the best possible public services. Combine that with a little bit of backbone in foreign policy (that for me, means withdrawing support where it isn't deserved), progressive social attitudes (that's an end to religious privilege and the promotion instead of secular, rational ethics) and determination to achieve maximal global cooperation on environmental issues, and I'm sold.

This isn't on offer from either a state-shrinking centre-right party, nor a protest party on the hard left. If the centre-left scattered amongst Labour, LDs, Greens and even some of the Tories could form a coalition based on this set of principles, we might have the option of voting for a capable government who could achieve improvements to our society and a contribute to solving global problems such as climate change and conflict rather than exacerbating them as we do now.

I don't, unfortunately, believe that these ideas have much popularity. One has apply rational, critical reasoning to see how things like paying more tax or burning less oil, while not instantly fun are good in the long run. And that's not what people do.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

There has been a rumour that he was interested in standing in Batley, with a view to challenging for the leadership immediately thereafter.

jcm

In reply to Jon Stewart:

So would I. Actually I think the ideas have a fair bit of popularity. The problem is politically uniting the parties which broadly support them.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Really? That would be a very big deal indeed if it happened.

Like others, a labour party with David milliband leading is one I could vote for, for all the reasons Jon sets out.

Is this from reliable sources?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Me too, but then I've always been something of a Blairite post-Bosnia and after Blair's Chicago Speech (and the St Malo Accord); more than it has ever been fashionable to be anyway.

On D. Milliband, a good friend worked as a policy advisor for him for a couple of years and came to the conclusion he was a genuinely decent person.

I presume everyone has seen: https://www.facebook.com/ISeeYouStories/photos/a.572035576233853.1073741829... ?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

>Is this from reliable sources?

No.

jcm

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:




I voted tory last time. If DM was leading the labour party i would be voting differently.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Would that be the same David Miliband who during his failed Labour leadership bid talked of avoiding the 'comfort zone' of just opposing the Conservative-led government's policies? The one who wanted to provide no opposition whatsoever and do away with any pretence at a distinct political agenda? That David Miliband?

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

DM's polices would much closer to EM's than DC's.

In reply to john arran:

I'm of the opinion that the Blairites should f*ck off back to New Labour and leave voters with a proper Labour party should they be that way inclined to vote. With Corbyn at the helm, Labour have my vote, otherwise I'll vote Green as I normally do.

I for one can't be doing with the status quo of Westminster and the culture of pathological lying.

In reply to Baron Weasel:

That's fine, but I just don't think the majority of the country agree. For all that everyone talks about Blair as a disaster, he is the only labour leader that has won a general election in the past 30 years or so. I think labour supporters consistently overestimate how left wing the country actually is

In reply to andyfallsoff:


I am not sure they do. Its just many of them sat through Blair's reign and saw him pursue some rather extreme policies around privatisation, regulation etc.
The thing people overlook is there was a continual drop in the core support over those years as people for disenchanted. Its also, I think, a major part of why we now have a large number of people who feel completely disconnected.
They dont see a party representing them but instead just assuming they will vote for it whilst chasing others.
We do have a "centre" party (well sort of) in the libdems. However doesnt look like there are many votes there unless you get a free carry over from the left or right.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


I respect your opinion, however I think there are many people who have been engaged in politics by Corbyn who would otherwise simply not vote. I think these people should have the option to vote for the leader they want - even if he does not win. The number of people who voted for him as leader of his party against what the press predicted speaks for itself. I would also like to see Blair investigated for war crimes where upon he can prove his innocence or otherwise.

In reply to KevinD:

I appreciate that it's hard to tell and everyone has their own opinion. I also concede that lots of people's opinions will be informed by the press (which seems more right than left). I do acknowledge that there are some people who have been attracted to support the left by corbyn type policies, and I think the more people who can be brought into the conversation the better.

However, I just don't believe there is the widespread support through the population for those policies. The majority of the population (as far as I can see) don't think Blair was a dangerous right winger - they think that the labour government overspent during their time in power up to 2010. I don't agree with this, but the fact is that the Tories have painted labour with this brush, and they won the last election - not convincingly, given turnout etc, but with vastly more support than the other parties.

By all means we could find out at an election, but (to the extent they mean anything) the polls I have seen show support for labour in the last year as being less than you'd expect given the disarray of the Tories. I don't know how much of this is due to the messenger, though - I don't think most people (and this time, I do include myself) think Corbyn is much of a leader.

In reply to Jim C:

Accusations of that sort and bullying and division post the vote are unacceptable. But there was a clear racist edge to some of the leave campaign (that poster, Farage in general) and those views are utterly abhorent and have no place anywhere in our society. I know many leavers who voted from reasoned and rational views of what they thought was the best without any racism, and I presume the vast majority are like that.

Remainers (DoI: I was and still am a committed remainer) and leavers alike need to continue an open and vigorous debate to understand the other sides position and find a way for the country to move forward and redefine its role internally and globally. But this must be polite and honest (unlike the entire, awful campaign on both sides).

There is a lot of anger amongst the remainers about the decision that is seen as many of us as hugely damaging to a national identity we were proud of, to our stability and a huge gamble with our children's futures. Additonally there is anxiety and feeling of loss of belonging amongst those living in the UK from overseas (many members of my family) and his needs to be recognised by leavers and huge amount of effort is needed by all who voted leave to build cohesion and reassure those people.

In reply to Jim C:


What have I wrongly accused you of? Nothing to date.

I will now accuse you of prejudice, prejudging my character and on the basis of my vote. Does that make you a racist, absolutely not but it demonstrates poor judgement, hopefully just a momentary lapse caused by frustration or a few too many.
jk

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Up to his ears in green lighted torture, even if Straw was the first. Not sure how far Chilcot goes but it's not going to luck good for him if the Iraq war was based on deception and hubris.

D

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Up to his ears in green lighted torture, even if Straw was the first. Not sure how far Chilcot goes but it's not going to luck good for him if the Iraq war was based on deception and hubris.

D

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I don't understand why people don't appreciate Corbyn's style of engagement and want to go back to a situation where people are shouting across the house at each other. I haven't read the whole thread, just the opening post.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I confess to being rather conflicted - I've always voted LibDem and then Green because New Labour and the Tory's seemed too similar. Corbyn has been a breath of fresh air to those of us who have become disenchanted by our politics. This talk about him being backed by militants is nonsense - the many people I know who've joined Labour to back him have several things in common - they are young, educated and form their opinion from social media and experience not newspapers - Murdoch's lies have no traction with them. They'll never forgive Blair for Iraq. The question is, when everyone you know feels the same, are you living in a bubble? Are you being hopelessly idealistic? I fear so - the power and influence stacked against the Corbyns of this world are frightening. The 1% of 1% won't give up their position easily. And this is why I think maybe we need our Millibands. They'll chip away at the edifice rather than try to smash the doors in.

In reply to Phil1919:

>
Because he doesn't engage, except with his mates and supporters. He can't or won't use the media (unlike McDonnell, who an excellent performer) and it seems that he doesn't even communicate with his own cabinet.
If you retrat to a bunker then the bunker gets surrounded and overwhelmed.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Ok.

Personally I like just about everything he says and stands for. He seems to me to be consistent and honorable. He has a message of peace, fairness and social justice. I only became his supporter when I heard him first speak as he came to prominence. I understand that he doesn't seem to be able to get people on board, but to go back to an unconvincing labour leader such as the candidates at the last leadership contest, I don't think would work.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:


There's no point to a Labour party which morphs into the Conservatives in order to get the vote of a professed Tory voter! That's like me saying I'd vote blue as long as they had Corbyn or Lucas as a leader.

In reply to Alyson:


I don't think it's fair to suggest that a Labour party of the centre ground would have morphed into the Conservatives - there's plenty of space between Corbyn-Labour and Cameron-Conservative, never mind the kind of Conservative party we're about to see (which may make it look like the Tories had been busy morphing into Labour this past while!)

A lot of people who view Corbyn and the far left as dangerously extreme would be quite happy to vote for a moderate, centre-left party, especially with the main alternative veering off to the right. If the left of Labour can't accept this as a necessary compromise (to give the party a passable chance of winning elections), Labour maybe do need to bite the bullet and split in two, into socialists and social democrats.

I'm not sure how well that'll work under FPTP, though, and it would take a while for whoever ends up without the party infrastructure to get going again properly.

In reply to skog:


I think it is perfectly fair.

Here we have the evidence for the view above. Whilst there are far left parts of the Labour party to suggest the policies put forward by Corbyn are dangerously extreme is odd. His policies, viewed outside the UK/USA prism, are middle of the road tending towards left policies. Outside of some of the right wing nuts paranoia who think he is doing a brexit campaign and lying about what he would do I am not sure who when looking at the policies would claim it is far left.
The other problem with going middle of the road is you can shift the window. As has happened in the UK. Labour went a bit right, tories went a bit further and then rinse and repeat. To the point we end up with some policies shown as normal which would have Thatcher going "hang on thats a bit nuts".

In reply to jkarran:

It was originally meant as an Ali G reference( he is a comedian )

As I said I have not checked back through you posts to see if you personally have called me or other leave voters racist
( I certainly don't recall you condemning it, but I'm looking forward, not back, so I will never know)

In reply to Alyson:

Elections are won by swing voters though. Do you want a left leaning Labour Party that can deliver a social democratic policy or do you want a Labour Party that sits further to the left but the Conservatives in Government busily tearing apart the state.

In reply to KevinD:


I don't personally think they're particularly extreme, but surely you've noticed that it's mainstream, rather than 'odd', to think so?


You'll be fine as long as the UK electorate remembers to view him from outside the UK bubble, then...


I agree with you here, but that horse has already bolted. It seems to me you now have the choice of sticking firmly to your principles, and losing, or of accepting a compromise to the centre ground, and maybe winning, stopping the resulting government from being much further right.

But, hey, maybe I'm wrong, and Corbyn will storm to victory, heralding the dawn of a new mild-flavoured Socialist epoch in the UK. Watch this space!

In reply to Phil1919:

UK politics is currently leaderless for about 90+% of it. SNP and a few welsh parties are the only people with a leader in place. UKIP's leader isn't it's only MP, the green have 1 MP, in wales it took two goes to agree an assembly leader, labour and tories are divdived..... the EU and UK are splitting....

and where is Corbyn... he is addressing some group of luvvies in Kensington or Islington... "the peoples friends of where ever" . He is avoiding the world pretending it isn't happening. Just like the past 40 years as an MP, quick to moan to the people who all agree with him anyway, incredibly slow to act to do anything positive to improve things. A strong labour leader would have been Europe greasing a few wheels for the future negotiations, perhaps a show of face at the Welsh football game... the guy doesn't know how to do anything other than complain.

In reply to skog:


No it is odd. The fact that a view is mainstream doesnt stop it being odd. In case you havent noticed we have had an entire referendum based around presenting bollocks as truth and many of those lies got accepted as mainstream opinion.


It is a problem. The incessant propaganda I think is almost insurmountable. However this leads onto:


This was the claim last time though. What we ended up though was not a compromise but a steady shifting of the ground to the right. To the extend where even moderate left wing views are being portrayed as far left now. So as solutions go I cant say that would convince me if I was a labour voter.
We then have a f*ck load of people who dont feel represented. All those labour voters who have watch the "centre" move steadily away whilst being expected to vote loyally. We end up with less people voting and people going for the less mainstream parties and voting for people because they are "real" and not "professional politicans" or people voting out because it is seen as sticking it to the elite.
I am not sure what the answer is for Labour but I dont think pretending Blairs approach was one which works long term is the right one.

In reply to KevinD:

Mm. I think Corbyn could be a viable leader of a left-wing party under some sort of PR system in a properly multi-party UK.

But there's no sign of that happening, which leaves Labour trying to get a majority, which I just can't see happening under Corbyn.

And apart from all that, if he can't maintain some passable form of party discipline, Labour really doesn't have a chance under him.

In reply to KevinD:

Kevin Schofield on twitter a short while ago:

If you think Labour's at war now, wait till Jeremy Corbyn joins forces with Alex Salmond to call for Tony Blair to stand trial at The Hague.

In reply to skog:


Who is the alternative though and how will they deal with increased disillusionment in the heartlands if they take the "centre ground" approach.
How will they be any more successful than the previous lot in preventing the window being consistently shifted to the right? If they cant answer that then maybe it is best to be in opposition. Since they would win the battle but lose the war.
There was an interesting suggestion, think from one of the greens, that they should basically go for a coalition campaign between greens, labour, Libdems and I think SNP. Main shared policy being electoral reform and go from there.

In reply to KevinD:
I don't know who's the alternative, no. Dan Jarvis looked pretty good, but that seems to have come to nothing.

If you don't get your act together, it'll maybe be Tim Farron...

A coalition for electoral reform might work, but I suspect it couldn't find a majority. Wouldn't quite a lot of Labour MPs oppose it anyway?

In reply to andyfallsoff:


One can blame Thatcher and Murdoch for that. Divide and rule.

In reply to Murderous_Crow:
No. If somebody doesn't understand the electorate they can't blame anybody but themselves.

In reply to Postmanpat:



Funny that, not long ago you were saying the opposite.

In reply to skog:


The only thing I have ever seen about Dan Jarvis is about him being an alternate leader. Never really seen any strong policies or thoughts from him.


"you"? Dont think you quite understand my position.


sadly I doubt it. I thought they did stand a chance of waking up the politics but after their utter incompetence in the coalitation be hard for them to recover. Particularly among all the young voters they pissed off.


I am not sure either. Its an interesting idea though and perhaps an alternative to the drift rightwards appeasing the swing voters would give.


I dont know. If they saw it as their best chance of keeping seats then probably not. Its the problem with the veering of the vote from one side to another. Whilst in power its generally not seen as a good thing but when out it suddenly starts looking appealing.

In reply to RomTheBear:

No I didn't. You probably just misunderstood as usual.

PS. Why don't you just go and irritate somebody else?

In reply to Postmanpat:

No actually I remember quite clearly you arguing that Corbyn would benefit from Brexit, and that we shouldn't worry about Farage, that he would get only a short term boost.

Now you seem to suggest the opposite. Just pointing out the inconsistencies, I don't see the need to insult me.


You have some cheek ! I'm not the one throwing insults here, if a simple post irritates you I suggest you delete your account.

In reply to RomTheBear:

So, misunderstanding again. Farage is not getting a boost from brexit. He's getting it from Labour's failure to do the job it was invented for.


I've tried ignoring you and I've tried insulting you but you keep popping up like a bad penny. I'm not interested in endless pointless discussions in which you misinterpret something quite simple, I explain it again and again and then you call me a liar. It's an utter waste of my time.

There's plenty of other people for us both to debate with. I'm not going to delete my account just for you!!

In reply to summo:

Ok.

I'd take him instead of Boris, Gove, May, Farage or a number of other Labour contenders from the last labour contest though and hope someone with more outgoing personality came along to take over in time. Who would you choose to lead the country now?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Something we agree on! (The bit about labour - fare will no doubt get a boost from Brexit too)

In reply to Postmanpat:

You're contradicting yourself again... You've said the exact opposite before.


No, it just seems you shift position every time events prove you wrong, or accuse other of "misinterpreting".

In reply to RomTheBear:


Lol, so you keep deluding yourself ,which is why I'm so bored with it. What part of "get stuffed" don't you understand?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Why so much hate ? You were a reasonable poster, since this brexit thing you morphed into some sort of angry troll.

You made it pretty clear in previous thread we shouldn't worry about ukip after Brexit, that they won't take over, now you say the opposite, that they'll try to replace labour in the heartlands, an argument that others and I made before and that you dismissed as scaremongering.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I think I hear love in the air

In reply to RomTheBear:


Because I'm sick of spending time arguing "I said, you said" with you and being accused of saying (in one case stupid and unpleasant) things I never said or meant and then being called a liar. If you want to continue to believe your version of things then feel free. I don't care. I just don't want to waste time in such squabbles.

In reply to KevinD:


I'm going to the wedding!

In reply to Postmanpat:


Listen I'm not making it up, you clearly said that it was all myths that ukip would take over after Brexit.
Now you're suggesting the opposite.

It's not a bad thing to change your mind but I'm not sure why you make such a big deal out of it, if you don't want to waste time in squabble then debate the topic instead of insulting.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Notice how Rom, probably the board's most dishonest player, never quotes what he claims you have said.

In reply to Phil1919:


given the state of the two parties and a general lack of direction by any of them. A snap general election. Public manifestos etc.. so people can vote for a party and leader that matches their version of Brexit.

No one is certain if Corbyn was remain or brexit he was missing from the debate for the past 6 months. The Tories are all over the place. It would be a good chance for the LibDems to jump in and scoop up some labour voters too.

A general election would be hell in one way, but in a few months both the biggest parties, with the vast majority of the country's voter could have leaders for the next 3 plus years that no one voted for. Push come to shove, perhaps Leadsom, new fodder but can't be any worse that any of the rest right now. I wouldn't trust Gove or May, who were both clearly playing the long game from the off.

In reply to Lusk:


I've already bought a hat.

In reply to RomTheBear:

>
It's impossible to discuss a topic if one person repeatedly misunderstands or misportrays the position of the other. Are you not able to understand this?

Last time we ended up parsing some sentence by a third party because not only wouldn't accept my perfectly rational understanding of it (I accepted yours was possible, although odd) but accused me of lying about it. It's happened several times . Such squabbling is embarrassingly childish, not interesting, and leads nowhere.

In this case, I could explain the difference between your version and my version. I can see how you would reach your interpretation (in other cases you have simply been mistaken) but know you won't accept my version so we will go around in circles whilst you insist that you are always right.

It's a waste of time, for both of us.

In reply to Big Ger:

Didn't think it was necessary but here you go :

"3) There is a myth that if we brexit then Farage and Boris and a bunch of far right nutjobs will take over. No they won't"

Now he seems not so sure, saying they will exploit labour's failings. Something many warned about on here.
I'm simply pointing it out to him, he's free to clarify if needed, but instead he goes throwing insults...

In reply to Postmanpat:




The problem PP, is that made a simple one sentence, polite observation, and instead of clarifying your position if needed, you threw a big tantrum and started insulting me.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I'm happy to change my mind and explain why but I don't trust your ability to understand any explanation, particularly any nuance, of anything so I don't want to get drawn into debates with you.

Is there something wrong with you? You seem to be very needy.

I'll help. "PMP, I find your arguments very misleading, mendacious and abusive so lets not debate with each other".

In reply to Postmanpat:


Shall I say the same ? A made a simple remark and you start insulting me straight away.

In reply to RomTheBear:


No. I'm the one trying to stop. You insist on carrying on. Shall we agree to stop?

In reply to Postmanpat:

If in future you don't want to clarify your position, or don't answer to me, don't, but there is no need for insults.

In reply to RomTheBear:


If you make mistaken and in one case scurrilous accusations I shall respond aggressively.

Why do you feel the need to say anything to me? Just ignore my posts. I'll ignore yours.
No problem.

In reply to Postmanpat:


No


That's your debating tactic ? Bully other into shutting up.

In reply to summo:

Agree totally! I don't think Farron has made much of an impression of late - he's perhaps been more anodyne than Corbyn during the past few weeks, and I do think Farron lacks that 'big beast' factor (I wonder if Clegg would come back in to the Lib Dem fold to beef things up?).

But given the state of the current stable of political riders, I am not sure any of them are in a position to make such a massive constitutional step such as BREXIT.

BTW Leadsome's brother in law, an offshore financier, has donated £816,000 to the Conservative party (and her local constituency) since she first successfully ran for parliament at the last election. Nothing wrong about that....but then Leadsom herself said that she was unaware of the donations made by this member of her own family.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Are you mad? It's not a debating tactic. I don't want to debate. I'm just suggesting that we ignore each other. Feel free to make whatever points you like, but make them to somebody else.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Why don't you just stop replying to his posts? It's quite easy to do.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Well feel free to ignore then, instead of being offensive.
I'll maintain my point, it is quite clear that ukip is unfortunately going to benefit from Brexit.
Even more so now that labour is finished.

In reply to tony:


I did. For about two weeks, until he made one false statement too many about my position on something. But you're right.

In reply to RomTheBear:

>
I shall. But it would be polite of you not to address posts to me. If you make false accusations I shall respond appropriately.

>
Fine.

Bye x

In reply to Postmanpat:

Insults are not an appropriate response. I simply made an observation and you overreact,stop the paranoia nobody is accusing you of anything.


Bye !

In reply to RomTheBear and Postmanpat:



Yay! Can we have our threads back now please?

In reply to john arran:


Go ahead. The coast is clear

In reply to john arran:


Hold on a sec. Farage is resigning.

So Boris gone, Farage gone. Being a bad person I can't resist a little jig

In reply to Postmanpat:



Unfortunately Farage gone is probably a good thing for UKIP.

In reply to RomTheBear:


6 months too late, but better late than never. UKIP will start creeping a little left now, still right wing of course. But, hopefully less extreme for the sake of the UK and the 3 million people who believed what farage told them.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I would wait a week or so just in case he changes his mind.

One thing I always find amusing about UKIP. Apparently the original founder was kicked out by a coup consisting of Farage and a few others because they thought he was trying to make the party all about himself.

In reply to Postmanpat:

And, of course, a thread titled "David Milliband"[sic] is the ideal place to discuss Farage's latest resignation

In reply to john arran:


I'm a bad bad person

In reply to andyfallsoff:

To be fair, the first election he won, a shaved chimp standing on a labour ticket would have won, the tories were unelectable. He got lucky on the sad demise of John Smith.

In reply to kipper12:

Or maybe TB had repositioned th eLabour Party so that they would have a landslide victory. TB learnt alot via John Smith- who was a centrist