UKC

..would be Jacob Rees Mogg if the members got a vote.

https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/02/our-survey-next-tory-...

Would anyone North of Watford vote for Little Lord Fauntelroy?

Is that according to the actual members, or the people that read that particular publication/website?

How about Tarquin Fintim-Limbim-Whimbin-Bus-Stop-F'Tang-F'Tang-Olé-Biscuit-Barrel?

After all, it is a silly party.

I heard he’s pulled out of the running for health reasons, his syphilis is playing up something terrible.

Wow, 3 dislikes on 3 posts in an instant!

Are we about to be graced with pearls of wisdom from The Mogg himself?

The dislikes suggest to me that there are tories out there who won't come out of the closet.

Or maybe they just hate you because of your comments on the lovely Julia Bradbury.

It's a website poll but I was nevertheless surprised by the result. I don't visit Conservative home very often but imagine it reflects the views of the party membership in a broad sense.

It's universally acknowledged among those I the know that the front runner never wins a Tory leadership election

I don't know anything about Conservative home and therefore don't know if it represents the views of Conservative Party Members as a whole, or just a faction of it that might be more prone to be supportive of the likes of Rees-Mogg, etc. 
Pretty similar perhaps to viewing Momentum as representing all Labour Party Members?

Well, we can't let the US and North Korea have the world's craziest leader contest all to themselves

He gives me the creeps. Find him quite chilling. 

No surprise to me.
Haven't you twigged yet that UKC is a hotbed of lurking Torys?

Who now love to relentlessy whinge about Brexit!

I can't figure him out at all. He has that upper class arrogance that means I'd never tire of punching him, but brexit apart he seems to be quite level headed.

I remember when he first came to my notice, the Ali G interview (20 years ago?) in which I thought he did quite well. But then I forgot about him somewhat. The next time I remember noticing him was on HIGNFY, his thought on Jeremy Corbyn were truly honourable and he came across as being quite funny too. He then did some television stuff with the labour MP Jess Phillips (two more juxtaposed characters you couldn't imagine) and also going to South Shields to talk to people in the street. On all occasions, he didn't let his obvious difference in class come across as snobbery, he was friendly, kind and respectful, which left me thinking, what a thoroughly decent bloke. I remember him "slaughtering" Theresa May in parliament over the European Arrest Warrant, the look on May's face was truly priceless. I also thought he was one of the few MPs to come out of the Brexit debacle with any kind of honour (certainly the only one from the Leave side). I posted all of that on here at the time and then someone pointed out a few disturbing things. After doing a bit of digging, I'm afraid to say that, his mask of congeniality soon started to slip and then fall away completely. His filibustering tactics of the bills he opposed were a disgrace.

I actually think he might make a half decent PM, but definite not whilst Brexit hangs over us.

LOL. Judging by the amount of dislikes this is generating you'd think some people on here have never heard of Monty Python.

So, to educate the mass:

youtube.com/watch?v=kJVROcKFnBQ&

Enjoy!

I put "Jacob Rees Mogg Abortion" into Google and it came up with "Yes, he is."

It did also throw up this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jacob-rees-mogg-abortion-pill...

I realise that I am conflating level headedness with ethical consistency.

It’s an universally acknowledged falsehood then.

Theresa May was the clear front runner according to most polls of conservative members in June 2016. The same was true of David Cameron in 2005.

You're ignoring the fact that the leadership contest begins long before the contest proper begins. Boris front-ran throughout the referendum that begat a leadership poll. RM is counting on the Brexit negotiations to deliver a second contest in which he is today the front-runner. Are you old enough to remember Maggie's obvious successor Heseltine? He was beaten by a candidate who didn't even stand in the first ballot.

and so the reduction of the left to a nasty childish grouping of spiteful infants, continues unabated. 

Ok,  so what you are merely saying is that the front runner a long time before the actual ballot is rarely the winner. Well I don't even know whether that's true but it may not be relevant.

Presumably if we are talking about JRM we are looking at the near term, and in the near term there is a decent record of the polls getting it right. It's a delusion to ignore the polls just because we don't like what they are saying. 

Personally I wouldn't underestimate him, many underestimated Corbyn as well, saying he is too "extreme" and dismissing what the polls were clearly telling them.

Rom, less sophistry, more history.

BnB, fewer counterfactuals and more factuals.

I just pointed out to you that the polls of leadership contest had a rather good record of accuracy in the near term. Hence my view that they are a useful piece of data that shouldn't be ignored on what seems to me no more than a gut feeling.

Fewer.

Damn you are too fast !

I highly recommend you study the overthrow of Thatcher as a lesson in Tory ruthlessness. The Cabinet decided the contest, not the MPs and certainly not the members. This was under different rules to today. In the same way, TM came to power without ever calling on the party members' support. I've no doubt that RM plays well in the bluest of heartlands, hence his poll ratings. But history casts doubt that they will ever get a vote on the matter.

Not at all Gerald.

My point is that his background, culture and values are so far removed from the experience of most Britons that he will find it difficult for many, especially those distant from the home counties, to identify with him. Unfortunately identity politics matter.

Ok so we somewhat agree. My premise is that if there was a leadership contest and he was on the ballot, then according to the polls and their accuracy record, he clearly has a very good chance.

But (as I've said in the other thread), his main issue is to get there in the first place, he needs first a leadership contest and the support of enough MPs... However I wouldn't just say he won't get it just because of some half arsed hunch based on what happened once decade ago, times have changed. I don't know, I just know that it is clearly a possibility that he gets there.

Many seem to be making the mistake of underestimating the guy. I would say though, he would probably be better off staying where he is for now, and keep tying the PM's hands and sabotage the EU negotiations, prevent her from making the concessions she needs to make, and then let her take the blame at the end for failing Brexit. And then pick up the pieces. That's probably what he is doing TBH.

They voted for brexit so yes. 

In the same way working class voters in the rust belt states voted for Trump?

Maybe, but I just can't imagine a car worker in Sunderland sitting in the pub defending Rees Mogg.

I can, if the alternative was Corbyn. Forelock tugging is deeply ingrained in the British psyche, as is teeth spitting hatred for lefty vegetarians and anyone else the Sun or Mail demonises.

That all sounds a bit reminiscent of that 'harmless buffoon' Bojo the Clown and we all know how that turned out

Nobody - well those who refuse to look- couldn't imagine a car worker in a rust belt state voting for a real estate billionaire such as Trump either. On the face of it, it doesn't make sense.

One of the similarities he shares with Trump is populism. As Trump came across as Pro-American, JR-M comes across as very Pro-British, and that resonates strongly, I would say, particularly with some car workers from Sunderland. Obviously, that was a complete ruse on Trump's part. He has, and never has had, any intention of "draining the swamp". He emptied it, gold lined it, filled it up with champagne and invited all his friend around for a good ol' time.

I think you are possibly not taking into account the social history of the UK. The UK public rejected socialism despite it being good for large sections of the populace. They elected Thatcher 3 times, despite the fact that she overtly ruined society with her overly aggressive capitalist agenda to benefit her own kind. They voted for Brexit (I don't need to go there, do I?) Even the Scottish decided against independence once the esrablishment got to work on them. There is still very much an element of "cap doffing" inherent within the psyche of the British public and no, this forum is not a great barometer of the British public at large, it is on the whole, substantially left-leaning.

Although I agree with you to a certain extent, a Geordie would never defend JR-M, but like Pete says (who I actually disagree with on certain points), do not underestimate The Mogg. He will rub and against the legs of the British Public, whilst purring away and they might just reach down and give him a stroke.

*Edited for my usual poor spolling and grummar.

Well, that was a lot more succinct than my post!

Precisely, if he had me fooled he'll be able to fool many others.

I would  - I'm from Merseyside, that hotbed of Conservatism with a capital C.

What sort of Britain is he rooting for, whose Britain? Not mine.

If it came to a choice between Jeremy and Jacob over a vision of the future of the UK, it would  be Jeremy every time for me.

Let's just hope it doesn't come down to such a choice as both would be rubbish!

It aint wot you sed but ow you sed it.

<i>"I'm going to vote for JRM. Anyone but that bloody Corbyn. He'll nationalise everybloodything, and you know how well that worked out the last time! Then the country would be flooded with Polish car workers before you could clock off!"</i>

A book you may enjoy; "Deer Hunting with Jesus. "

Nor mine, but he appeals to people who hanker after the days of the British Empire.

I think you should think long and hard about Corbyn. I believe that he is a very honourable man, but has some deep political flaws. Personally, I'd rather see Vince Cable as PM out of the main candidates, as I would have rather have preferred Nick Clegg becoming PM in 2010.

Clegg, perhaps deservedly, got pilloried for teaming up with "Call me Dave", but I believe he held back the tide for 5 years, knowing that he would ultimately be sacrificing his career and indeed, his seat.

And let's face it, look at the complete clusterf*ck that has happened since.

I disagree, the empire to too distant to be the appeal. 

 I think he appeals to people who were born here and grew up here and now , in their 40's  ,  50's and 60's see all the certainties they grew up with being diminished and their mores and norms being undermined.  They are sick of being told that being a hard working, middle class, white person is a bad thing, and that they should  be happy to pay for the lifestyles of others who are more valued as they are not hard working, or white.  The tyranny  of the minority is getting a backlash. 

Very good points Ger, but I maintain there is still an element of the "cap doffing" psyche inherent in elements of British culture. It's almost impossible to prove, It's just my opinion, that's all.

You're talking about the "deferential voter", typically a working-class Tory. Alf Garnett was the popular embodiment as I grew up. Del-Boy in Only Fools another. There are many academic studies dissecting the phenomenon.

I don't doubt you are right,  but I think the part it plays is diminishing. 

That’s actually not correct, I’m 58 and when I was growing up we had - real austerity (not the pretend one that you think we have now), dysfunctional industry management, government, and unions, the most radical political change since 1945, winter of discontent, real nuclear threat, real barriers to social mobility, racism, homophobia, pedophilia, and sexism, largely a crap education system with lots of crap teachers, an NHS that managed by the population conveniently dying younger because they smoked, drank and ate chips cooked in dripping with everything - anyone who hankers for the 1960’s and 70’s is delusional

His biggest political flaw is being a socialist. 

Love or loath him, he does have a certain charm about him, and he is the quintessential English man that probably strongly appeals to an awful lot of people.

It's all academic anyway, the Corbyn led government is coming this way soon, happy days!

I agree with your first point.

As for your second point - see Cander's final few words at 14:27 on this thread.

You can't really say he is leading anything now, he couldn't ever lead a government or a country. What makes you think he possess any leadership ability at all?

The UK would be led along the garden path by the unions and momentum more like. I'm just hoping the lib dems wake from their coma and a return to coalition politics.

Where dI'd I say anyone hankers for the 60's and  70's? 

I'm of a similar age to you so I'm sure in no doubt about some of the things which went on then.

I enjoyed the Economist's description of RM as "leader of the kamikaze wing of the Tory party."

Pinstripe populist was s nice alliteration -)

I'd rather go to hell on a Labour hand cart tan a Tory one, thanks

Corbyn's a long way off certain victory. Against this shower sh** he should be miles ahead and out of sight but he's still only just edging the polls. That is truly pathetic and Labour should be  asking him some very awkward questions.

I should go through all the replies and check where the posters live.

Sitting here in Edinburgh I can't see many Scots being charmed by his anachronistic Englishness which just reeks to me of a class system based on exclusiveness and the exploitation of most of the rest of society. Something we have been gradually ridding ourselves of since the end of the First World War. I'd imagine the same being true in Wales and Northern Ireland. If he were to become PM many in the provinces would see him as another English aristocrat ruling over us peasants in the provinces. I happen to think it's crap by the way, class is more important than nationality, but the SNP have been using that narrative in Scotland for many years and with a good deal of success.

Apparently according to Corbyn, there are no seats, best sit on the floor.

He’ll have that salt of earth Gove to land the Scottish vote

I don't really want to start talking about Labour on this thread but you're right.

The trouble is that Labour are suffering from the same delusion after the '17 GE that the SNP did after the independence referendum. They think they won, or at least 60%+ of the party membership does and the MPs who realise he needs to move into a different league have been silenced because Labour did do very much better than they said he would.

Against a better leader running a better GE campaign Labour could be in big trouble, depending upon how the Brexit negotiations pan out. However Johnson has blown it in my view, Gove is seen as Brutus and Mogg seems to come from a different planet, I'm not sure which of the others in today's party are really any better and would be acceptable to their MPs regards their stance on Brexit.

As an SNP supporter I really, really, really hope he wins. 

Maybe I should join the Tory party just to vote for him for a laugh.  Voting in Tory leadership elections seems to be the only way to have any influence on UK policy these days.

Can't disagree with a word of that

Not dead clear in my thoughts here. But though the Tories are in power it is a bit of an existential moment for them.

If Brexit turns out to be the catastrophe many expect, the Tories will not be forgiven quickly.

On the other hand they have few members and an ageing demographic. 

So, from their perspective, they have to get the next few years right. RM isn't it.

I would love wish they get it wrong but that would be silly.

"I once asked my history teacher how we were expected to learn anything useful from his subject, when it seemed to me, to be nothing but a monotonous and sordid succession of robber baron scumbags devoid of any admirable human qualities.
I failed history.
The most palatable history of the world I ever read is only 120 pages long and part of Buckminster Fuller’s book, “Critical Path”. The robber baron scumbags are still there but some attempt is made to explain their pathology and why they’re still around today." Sting.

I was thinking about this shit today, my simplistic result was, Torys - Money. Labour - People.
9 years of austerity are getting really really bornig now.

Oh absolutely! You'll always get rich, powerful people. They're everywhere, the UK, the US, Russia, China...

However the progress we've made in the UK and in many other Western countries is in the opportunities open to ordinary members of society. Both my parents left school at 14 although I'm sure they were both as bright as their son who did get to go. Women are no longer discriminated against in the workplace. Raising cash for a new business no longer depends upon who you know and neither does getting that job you wanted, in most places at least. Finally, we have placed some limits on what "robber barons" can and cannot do. Whether or not their activities should be subject to more and closer control is a matter for political debate.

Jacob Rees Mogg, I suspect, would be quite happy for us to return to the kind of society we had a century ago. After all, he'd be OK!

There's an implicit moral judgement in your choice of words that does the formula no favours. I think you could refine the comparison thus:

Tory - Economy first, Labour - Welfare first

Each approach has its strengths and weakness.

You could also argue:

Tory - the Individual, Labour - the State

Except that the current approach taken by the Tories is blatant disregard for the economy due to Brexit (you can argue that maybe it won't be as bad as all that, but park that argument for now - at the very least, given the number of economists who are against it, they're being reckless about the potential damage).  There is also a debate about whether austerity / contractionary policies are good or bad for an economy. 

I'll grant you that economy first is what they're trying to sell themselves as, though. 

I think this one is more accurate.

Liberal - a synergy of the two?

We can only hope.

Haaha, I did use a certain word out of choice.
And you could use different words to say the same thing

Except that it isn't. Brexit is not a Tory phenomenon. It was voted for democratically.

You can make a case that the "hard brexiteers" are prepared to take undue risks with the economy but it's pretty clear that the remainer members of the cabinet, who are in the majority, are acutely aware of and sensitive to the risks. Hence the battle for control of the party.

All of these certainties you say we hanker after, that’s complete bullshit, life is now is better than its ever been for most people. Although sadly most people arn’t old enough to understand that we live in a country that is so much better than the 60’s and 70’s - you know when those people who are in their 40’s, 50’s and 60’s were growing up, who on earth do you think made this country what it is now - it’s not 20 or 30 something’s, who do you think challenged racism, sexism, homophobia, etc and made the laws change? It wasn’t people who wanted to maintain their certainties, mores and norms, it was us the people in their 40’s, 50’s, 60’s and shock horror even older. White middle aged middle class ... I don’t think there’s much wrong with us, we changed this country into a fairer and better place for everyone.

Tory: party infighting before anything else - at the expense of the economy.

Both the state. In different ways both parties are essentially in the business of reducing individual freedoms these days. And of increasing the power of the centralised state.

The truth in that statement would rather depend where in Merseyside.

You're right there.

I live in a relatively affluent area which for some, probably historical, reasons and despite my best efforts nearly always returns a Labour MP.

People here like to think of themselves as working class but that, of course, is a matter for debate.

Personaly I think a quarter of a million pound house and several expensive cars in the drive is more a middle class thing but maybe like Mr Rees Mogg I'm just out of date/touch.

Just saw this small piece by Janan Ganesh which sums up neatly the situation in a much better way than I can : https://www.ft.com/content/68f02dfc-099d-11e8-8eb7-42f857ea9f09

Come on now, class has nothing to do with money. I’m sure JRM could lecture you in that.

That's where I've been going wrong all these years.

Whilst I agree that life has become fairer and in many ways better, there are certain good aspects of bygone days that we have lost.

I remember watching an episode of Tomorrow's World in the 70's and them asserting that by the end of the century, we will have so much time on our hands that it could become problematic. How wrong were they? We seem busier than ever. We also seem to have become less friendlier than we once were. And of course, the music was better!

I think that JR-M, precisely because he seems so old-school, appeals to some that hanker for what seemed a quieter and gentler time. It did seem that way too me. But, perhaps this is just my recollection of childhood memories?

Hardly democratic given that the first people concerned did not get a vote.

The poll was a farce.

For an interesting and relevant  history read, try this;

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Seasons-Sun-Battle-Britain-1974-1979/dp/1846140323

again you're ranting about stuff which is unrelated  to my post. 

try again. 

or just enjoy blowing off for steam, up to you.

Yep. An acquaintance of mine, northern working class UKIP/Britain First supporter is currently flooding his (and unfortunately therefore also my) Facebook feed with Rees-Mogg promotional material from an assortment of far right, English nationalist, ex-military and of course, anti-EU campaign groups. He apparently has much wider appeal than you might think, particularly among those who might do well to think!

jk

No it's not, not among the key Tory demographic. They may not remember the 'glory days' but the painful (shameful from other perspectives) decline of British authority in the 50s and 60s has apparently left deep marks on those that lived it. They knew what went before, they suffered the loss, they're voting for a hideous fantasy which cannot be remade reality now and ironically we're suffering our own renewed decline for that.

They haven't paid for their own lifestyles let alone those of others. Research released today suggest the baby boom generation will receive 20% more from the state (so that's me and my generation and the next and the next who never will) than they paid in.

Remind me again which minority is tyrannical.

jk

Pull the other one. Brexit was conceived and promoted by disgruntled right wing Tories and ex-Tories. Brexit was the accidental side effect of a misguided attempt to quell Tory infighting. That it has for now at least found a limited degree of cross party support with the public does not absolve the Conservative party of blame for unleashing this chaos.

jk

Remind me what is Corbyns publically stated eu stance? 

Unlike the shadow cabinet over the past 2 years?

The lib dems aren't even stable and they can all share the same people carrier. 

Politics, perhaps because it's becoming driven by daily changing opinion and sound bites on social media has been unstable for a few years now. 

  So, a faction of Tories and a group of non-Tories promoted it and a cross section of all voters were for (and against). Objectively, this does make it a “Tory phenomenon”.

F*** knows! He desperately needs to sort that out and stand for something on Europe. That doesn't mean he caused this mess, the Tories and you did that.

Sorry, you've lost me.

A garbled quote from an old episode of HIGNFY?

Perhaps. Or perhaps it's because people like you voted for cataclysmic change on the basis of being *against* something without any kind of unified or realistic vision as to what you are collectively *for* making that change essentially undeliverable while the process of demonstrating that fact remains deeply harmful.

FWIW I think you're right that rolling news and social media have been engines for change, whether we're merely experiencing the effects of that change or the change itself is to increased instability and extremism we've yet to see, perhaps yet to decide.

jk

If he didn't sit on the fence the referendum might have swung more clearly in either direction.

If he got off the fence now, the government could possibly take a better or strong stance in the negotiations? His position or lack of isn't helping the Labour party or the UK. 

The lack of stability in the shadow cabinet.

Perhaps. But still applicable. 

Perhaps if the eu over the past 10 years had addressed some concerns on it's federal agenda and reformed, the Brexit issue will have never arisen. Not just in the UK, but elsewhere. It's not the electorates fault they don't like the eu's direction. 

He didn't sit on the fence, he picked a side. He didn't have a very high media profile for which he is partly though far from completely to blame.

A strong stance for what? It's not deliverable in any meaningful way that isn't treasonously harmful. Why have Labour voluntarily share the blame for the Conservatives' mess?

Debatable. I'm not sure he'd be better served by cleaving his support base just now, certainly he needs to eventually but with no election looming I don't see much value in playing his cards early. The time is coming.

Yes it is. We elect members to the EU parliament, we send people to the Comission and Council. Instead of properly engaging with Europe we've sent UKIP's idiots, clowns and fraudsters to fail to represent our interests. How much influence do you think we'll have on the outside?

jk

He is entirely to blame for his profile.

With the uks current position, Brussels knows it can use divide and conquer to give the UK a weaker deal.

You ignored the central driver for the referendum, as mentioned above. Without the Tories and their long history of EU infighting there would have been no referendum. The traditional Labour (Bennite) opposition to the EU has been of minimal significance until Corbyn was elected leader.

This is entirely a different Corbyn to the one I saw.  In fact I'm still not sure which 'side' he ended up picking.

Where did you see him?

I didn't.  Which is really the point.  I still don't actually know where he stands on Europe.

It says a lot about Corbyn that in front of the open goal that is at least 48% of the electorate, a Tory party providing zero leadership and about to implode, and a strongly Remain PLP, he still can't bring himself to adopt a more positive position on at least the single market /customs union, if not a referendum on the negotiated deal vs forgetting the whole thing.  Or, indeed, any clear position. 

During the campaign he was on balance for remaining  with reservations and said as much.

Now, who knows? Does it even really matter?

At this rate May looks just about able to cling to power for the duration, the best hope even the hard-line brexiteers have of forcing some sort of exit through a parliamentary rubber-stamping before the unreliable public get their say on the matter. It's not certain they'll win that vote but since May will set the terms the choice will likely be constructed as a political trap for Labour, not a meaningful democratic vote on our nation's future. Will that satisfy anyone? Will it matter that it doesn't? The outcome of more infighting in an attempt to install a hardliner is uncertain, that could backfire worse than just leaning on the beleaguered PM to do their bidding and without open Tory civil war to force an election Corbyn remains irrelevant to the whole Brexit process and apparently deluded as to his ability to affect significant social improvements in the aftermath of us crashing out of the EU.

jk

All Labour have said for 18ths is keeping all options on the table. Which is as vague as it gets. Which is how they want it as if they take a stand they'll lose voters from one side or other. But it is weak leadership. 

Well, they won't be getting my vote unless they stand up for something, and say so  clearly.

And without the FA there would be no FA cup. That doesn't mean that the FA creates the winner.

I think, PMP, that that is one of the most stupid, irrational non-sequiturs that I've ever seen in print.

You are mistaken. To think that enabling the voters to express their wishes on something means that those who enabled the vote caused the specific outcome (which in this case they explicitly didn't support) is an irrational no-sequitur. Weird. I'm truly baffled why people can't see this.

No, because the analogy would be that there is a new rival outfit to the FA that wants to take all clubs out of the FA and play with other clubs ... maybe a few local village or town ones, or foreign ones, or Chinese ones, or whatever. I.e. for your analogy to work, this new version of the FA would have to stand against most of what the FA stands for (football with other English clubs in the FA).

And that's just for starters. We would then have to discuss quite how FA membership relates to our first past the post voting system, parliamentary democracy, etc, etc, etc. 

Or maybe you think the FA is an analogy of a referendum system (as opposed to parliamentary democracy)? But that crashes down at the first hurdle because I think you would have to be the first to argue that that does create a 'winner'. 

Lots of other things wrong with it. But, really, Nick. Why not just admit you're talking crap (though I'll forgive you if you've had a bit to drink). Goodnight.

Your analogy completely misunderstands the point. The government is not offering an alternative to the FA, it's simply offering the members a democratic vote within the existing framework.

The FA is just saying "some people want a competition so we'll arrange one". The government simply said,"some people want a referendum so we'll arrange one".

Neither dictates the outcome of the competition/referendum and just as it would be silly for City fans to blame the FA if United won, it is silly for remainers to blame the governmet if brexiters won, particularly since the government explicitly supported remain.

Straw man, as ever... Gordon didn't say that. I suppose we have to cut you some slack, in that your original statement "Brexit is not a Tory phenomenon' leaves some doubt as to whether you were talking about the referendum, the outcome of the referendum or the appalling botch that is the current manifestation of Brexit. If we are talking about the first or the third, the Tories own these. The second, well, some non-Tories are implicated too. 

Classic case of a weak analogical argument. Far too dissimilar to be effective. 

  No, Gordon just said I was talking crap, so I explained what I was saying, through an analogy, which his subsequent reply suggested he hadn't really understood. Ironically it was his reply that was the straw man.

The analogy is fine: the Tories caused the referendum. That is not the same as causing the outcome of the referendum (which you have implicitly acknowledged). They did not cause the outcome, thus they did not cause brexit. The electorate caused brexit.

There's no post  more irrational  and stupid than one claiming someone else's post us irrational and stupid, yet offering no counter argument.

You win the prize for this week's most irrational and stupid post. 

They've almost certainly caused it by not including EU citizens on the ballot.

It must be heart breaking for you to give away such a long held title.

Yawn...

You know yourself if you take the nationality of the country you are in, you have full voting rights. 

The opposite is true. Leave the UK for 15years and even if you still hold a British passport, you are considered to have laid your hat elsewhere and lose those rights. 

We can argue about timescales and cut offs, but there has to be some system in place for this. 

To think that enabling the voters to express their wishes on something means that those who enabled the vote caused the specific outcome 

Gordon didn’t say that. You’re putting words into his mouth and distracting from his point. Hence straw man. 

The analogy is weak, unless the FA cup is a one-off instituted for a specific political purpose which has widespread effects outside the competition. 

Sure, if that's your argument then let's make the rule the same for everybody, anyone who wants to vote needs to pass a citizenship test, residency test, English test, pay around 2k, and wait a year.

Which is broken.

Yes, there had to be s system. It doesn't mean that it has to be grossly unfair.

Someone from Australia who lived in the UK for 10 month could vote, someone from France who lived in the UK for 5 years couldn't.

That is not a fair democratic system any way you look at it.

You can’t keep denying the Tories’ responsibility for the whole Brexit farrago, regardless of who voted for which alternative. And as Rom says below, they do have some responsibility for the referendum outcome, and not only by excluding EU voters.  By presenting the referendum as a simple ‘Yes/No’ alternative they unleashed the idiocy that is overwhelming us at the moment. 

Why ? Plenty of other countries allow their citizens to vote even if living elsewhere indefinitely , some (eg France) even have seats for 'overseas voters' in their parliaments. Those who work abroad & move frequently (& sometimes working for the same company all the time) can easily be out of the UK >15 years but never in another country long enough to qualify for citizenship, even if they wanted to change.

I agree, but there has to been thresholds, otherwise you could get flying voters just to cause unrest etc.. and it would be more costly to implement or maintain a register, fairness has a price. There are plenty countries that also apply the same rules as the UK. 

The UK doesn't have pr so the chances of special seats is nil. It does need an overhaul. 

'The analogy is fine: the Tories caused the referendum. That is not the same as causing the outcome of the referendum (which you have implicitly acknowledged). They did not cause the outcome, thus they did not cause brexit. The electorate caused brexit.'

Patently I don't accept that. Our democracy has broadly worked because although on specifics - economic theory, housing policy, foreign policy, whatever - the electorate may not have understood or cared about the detail; but they have in aggregate agreed a broad direction of travel. This has cut both ways - in the 60s the electorate wanted a more interventionist, Big State; by the 70s that had run its course and a change of course was called for. There was another change in the late 90s. The electorate got more or less the government it asked for.

Brexit was utterly different. It was a single issue where the demagogues and rabble rousers, unanswerable for their actions or words, could tell lies, make absurd promises and use the old Goebbels tricks (yep Godwin, and I don't effing care) of demonising 'the other' and telling not just lies, but BIG lies. 

I'm not even that fussed about Brexit; it might have been a catalyst for constructive change on both sides of the Channel. But I am fussed that it was caused by an abandonment of the rules of democracy, and that it is being implemented - or rather, isn't - by a government which patently is completely out of control, led by a rabbit caught in headlights, that doesn't know it's a*se from its elbow.

My prediction for Brexit? This is the UK's equivalent of Prohibition. It has already caused so much chaos, which will increase qualitatively after next year, that it will embed illegality, flouting of rules, corporate irresponsibility and the by-passing of the rule of law for generations to come. We can see that already, as HMRC struggle to cope with their current agenda, let alone gear up for the unknown next year. The inevitable outcome will be that we will be massively poorer for it. If I am wrong, come back in 10 years time and have a good laugh at me. Let's hope you can.

It's very frustrating and in some ways, yes, weak leadership, they clearly could be opening debate and having some probably limited influence on the brexit process at some cost to the party and their future electoral prospects. In other ways though I disagree, it takes leadership to hold a party of people with strong and disparate views to the party's necessary bland non position. He's not totally successful in that of course, the media are routinely going around him and there are outspoken voices in the Labour ranks growing frustrated. One can also argue Labour's bland non-position isn't essential (though I'd not easily be won over by that argument). Yeah, he's not a great leader and his fence sitting on on this is only marginally less frustrating than that of the deluded policies of the brexiteers yanking government's strings.

jk

I'm just interested to see PMP trying to distance the Tories from brexit. As one of the site's most vociferous brexiteers and clearly a Conservative I can only think of a couple of reasons why that might be. Both give me heart

jk

Yes. I do admire his Quixotic endeavours... 

Much more interesting is the reason why so many people like to describe brexit as "Tory brexit" as if it were a Tory project. Mainly it comes from people who are anti Tory and anti brexit so they choose to conflate the two because they believe it smears both (and of course because they fear that brexit will result in a less leftish UK).

It's inaccurate, not least because it implies intent, and undermines the debate about  brexit  which is why I make the distinction.

I've explained why I consider it a Conservative project. Its architects and funders (those we know of who didn't funnel money in anonymously through NI) are almost without exception right leaning conservatives. UKIP's MPs and candidates have largely been drawn from and returned to the Conservatives. It was unleashed by a Conservative PM in a staggeringly irresponsible botched attempt to lance the Conservative 'eurosceptic' boil. Obviously they have been able to attract a small amount of parliamentary support and a larger number of votes from across the traditional political spectrum but again it is important to note where the vast majority of public support came from: Conservative voters and UKIP strongly for it, all others strongly against. https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/06/27/how-britain-voted/

If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck...

jk

  And I've explained that is quite obviously not justification for describing it as a "Tory project". It was a project of one faction of the Tory party (together with others outside the party, notably UKIP) and , somehat crucially, not the one one in power at the time. Yours is just a crude corruption  that reflects your own prejudices.

The result of the vote, I'd argue is actually an Anti Tory phenomenon.  Once Cameron had come out as being totally pro Europe, plenty of people who would always vote against Tory (and 'posh boy call me Dave' in particular) - as a matter of principal,  voted for Brexit.  I don't often finding myself agreeing with PMP, but to the extent that the Tory leadership actually campaigned against Brexit whilst the opposition didn't appear to take a position either way you can't hold the Tories responsible for the result.  The botched idea of calling a referendum in the first place, definitely, but not the way the vote went.

That was certainly a view I heard from some, the 'sticking it to the posh boy establishment' vote but the numbers don't suggest it was anything like the prime driver of brexit https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/06/27/how-britain-voted/

I don't deny brexit found public support from across the political spectrum but it is clear that it was nothing like uniform support, 2/3 to 1/3 would be a 'landslide' result for Conservative-Leave and Labour/LibDem/Green Remain but that isn't how the result has been spun by government, media or the Labour party for that matter! The extremists need to dress this up as something with broad popular support but it just isn't, its support is relatively narrow; older, bluer and lower-educated.

The original point is that PmP claimed that Brexit was not the Tories' responsibility. That is not the referendum result unless you conflate 'Brexit' with the result. Over eighteen months after the referendum it is disingenuous to do that. Brexit now has a life independent of the referendum result - when we talk about Brexit now we mean more than just that. And when it comes to the shape and form of Brexit as currently envisage, the Tories have principal responsibility. That goes for the central leadership, the extreme Brexiteers who are dominating the form of Brexit, and the pusillanimous Tory remainers who won't stand up for their principles. I am not exonerating the Labour party either - they also bear some responsibility, just not the dominant share. 

Brexit is most definitely a Tory project. No other party was haemorrhaging votes to UKIP in 2010, hence Cameron, in lieu of growing a pair and telling his UKIP leaning party members where the door was, decided to settle a Tory internal dispute by promising a referendum.

   And the remainers like to dress these people up as extremist. The "relatively narrow" support group turns out to represent 52% of votes cast and includes, for example, over half of those in social groups A/B, 48% of those in the 35-44 age bracket, and 32% of those with degrees.

    We know that you bien pensant elitist chaps hold ordinary people, especially the less educated amongst them, in disdain but I thought you might have realised that there are frightening large number number them, perhaps too many to regard their views as "extreme".

Well, whose project is the actual Brexit plan then? The Tories are guiding (I use the term loosely) Brexit, they introduced the legislation, they're conducting (I use the term loosely...) the negotiations.

There is surely some intent around the Tories' efforts to implement Brexit isn't there? Although we do wonder...

 "We know that you bien pensant elitist chaps hold ordinary people, especially the less educated amongst them, in disdain" 

Feel you're losing the argument or something? Having tried logical fallacies and distraction from the main point you're resorting to evidence-free insults against people you don't know. 

(PS - been reading the Spectator or Rod Liddle recently? 'Bien pensant' is one of their favourite smeary insults these days. I'm surprised you didn't come up with 'latté drinkers' - is that passé?)

No it doesn't. Voters supported Brexit for a range of reasons.  Few wanted what we are getting  - the most extreme version possible with complete disregard for the economy, and social and cultural connections.  May has now decided to impose tariff and other barriers to appease the swivel-eyed loons.

I'd suggest advocates of this sort of thing, who are broadly the same as the extremists in charge, are those who hold "ordinary people" in disdain.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/feb/05/courier-who-was-fined-for-...

That's an interesting idea, that because a lot of people share an idea it cannot be extreme. By interesting I mean nonsense (Nazism for example) and its relevance in this case is dubious anyway, I'm not referring to the muddled mix of brexit voters' views as extreme (though some surely are), I'm referring to the increasingly muscular Conservative extremists pushing for a no-deal crash out of the EU, something I doubt you support.

LOL. Accusing someone of elitism in a language they don't speak, nice touch. I don't hold any group in disdain, I try to take individuals as I find them.

jk

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jacob-rees-mogg-abortion-pill...

It might seem he's not so pleasant or principled, he's against abortions after rape has taken place, and has invested money in a company which makes abortion pills, or as he put it, he does profit in 'a very round about way'. 

    As somebody said , If it quacks like a duck......

Are you smearing Rod Liddle now?

   Yes, a broad section of the population.

  I know, but you are implying that this group is misrepresenting the brexit vote as not "broad and popular" when it clearly was, even if their were identifiable trends within that.

  Glad to hear it!

Depending on your view you could argue good leadership is removing any challengers to the back bench away from the shadow cabinet then keep the threat of deselection wavering over them. 

If Labour had more voice. The hard brexiteers would have less impact. If Labour had a  very united public stance, that they supported Brexit but are pro customs union etc.. the wind would be blown out of a few tory sails. As any parliamentary vote in the future just wouldn't go their way. Labour did vote in favour of article 50, then went silent. That's neatly half the uk's paid mps doing what?! 

..it's a canard?

One could. I wouldn't.

If, but they don't. The Conservatives/DUP have a majority for now yet are in fragile enough a state to be able to demand when required absolute party loyalty. When push comes to shove their MPs would rather let some sort of brexit happen despite knowing it to be not in the national or their constituents' interest than face an election at the moment.

Why bother wasting their credibility fighting for something so utterly pointless when they can achieve much the same doing nothing but waiting?

Not that their vote made a bit and difference but to neutralise the accusation of anti-democratic behaviour that would have been levelled at them. It's worth remembering a few brave MP's decided to represent their constituents and didn't vote for article 50. What are Labour doing now? Constituency work and avoiding as best they can for as long as they can the toxic taint of brexit.

jk

For decades people like you have been telling the poorly educated that we lived in a highly meritocratic society, if they were poor and excluded, that was just their fault for being lazy, stupid, or ignorant.

The argument stopped working when large parts of the middle class also started to pay the price.

The europhobic and exceptionalist branch of the Tory party and UKIP jumped on the occasion to create a false narrative in which this was all the fault of the EU and foreigners.

That this narrative made it into the mainstream, as a result of the complacency, weakness, arrogance and incompetence of the moderates, does not make it less extreme.

Could you give examples of the narrative or message which you describe, particularly this bit  ''they should  be happy to pay for the lifestyles of others who are more valued as they are not hard working, or white'' ? 

I don't know if this has been posted on here previously, but whatever your views on the Mogg, this is impressive:

youtube.com/watch?v=AItFoaM-m6o&

I think Mogg is an odious prat but you have to say he comes out of that clip with rather more credit than the hecklers. He walks up to them alone - his supporters only come up later - is obviously not intimidated and tries to have an exchange of ideas, which, call me old fashioned, is what I thought universities were for. All they can do in return  is shout mindless slogans. The man has balls, if not principles.

He has principles too.  I just disagree with them.

Interesting video and portrays the reality of what a Mogg V Corbyn (i.e. momentum) contest would boil down to. This is exaxctly the sort of mindless scum that is taking over Labour with Corbyn's acquiescence at best and McDonnell's encouragment at worst.

I have never been able to consider voting Conservative due to my principles. I have always voted Labour, but that is purely because my home constituency MP is such a top bloke, David Drew. But I am wondering whether I can vote for Labour again, under the present leadership. I truly think Jeremy Corbyn is a principled and honourable man, it's just that his leadership skills are so absent, some of his policies so woolly and most of the people surrounding him, devoid of talent.

I think it's about time the Lib Dems were considered as a viable alternative by both the media and the public. No chance you may say, it's just a wasted vote. Perhaps that is, in effect, true? But it must be remembered that Emmanuel Macron walked the last French general election with a brand new party. So in his own inimitable way did Trump.

Is it time to connect up society with a Cable?

Who's the guy in the grey sweatshirt who starts the physical stuff and hits the girl? Mogg's security?

Edit - apparently it was someone's dad, according to this - https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/man-white-shirt-accused-starting-119...

Don't be so daft, that's a bunch of angry young men intent on making a scene, they're no more 'taking over Labour' than I am.

jk

What's the evidence that they're Labour members anyway?

I've seen this from a different angle. The girl was struck accidentally when the guy raised his arm to defend himself after the 'twat in the hat' clenched his fist by his ear in a threatening, punching stance.

youtube.com/watch?v=AItFoaM-m6o&

What made me really laugh were the hero activists who headed out of the door when challenged by The Mogg.

Edit: He maybe a member of the security staff hired by Bristol University and nothing to do with JR-M.

Reminds me of football replays - all the angles, and people can always find something to argue about. I'm agnostic - it's a pathetic protest in the first place, but that guy shouldn't have been intervening. That's what seems to have moved the encounter from shouting to something more physical.

I think you're probably right there. He should have just let the Mogg continue to try to engage them. They probably would have got bored of shouting their vitriolic slogans and/or totally decimated by his clearly superior intellect.

Wow!  That bloke with the baseball cap has got to be the biggest dick I've ever seen in my life.
In the highly unlikely event that he's a Labour party member, he needs booting out, now.

Ah I see, that explains a lot. It was Filton Poly rather than Bristol University.

Yep. Very succinct and correct.

But it's nothing of the sort really, is it?

There's plenty of arseholes in all walks of life, how do you know he's Labour for a start, massive assumption on your part. Even if he is, he's still an arsehole, there are plenty of Conservatives who have no time for the Mogg.

Equating this wanker to Corbyn is pretty disingenuous, even for you.

I agree with Lusk if he's a Labour Party member, rather than just a dick, he should be kicked out.

Meanwhile, very quietly https://www.facebook.com/lorraine.smith.5836/posts/10208513986275966

This may draw me some flak. Oh well, I'm used to it.

I'm actually starting to reconsider my statement.

As much as I believe Brexit is a really bad idea, let's face it, it's gonna happen. I'm wondering whether we actually need someone like Rees-Mogg to (metaphorically of course) flip the table and the bird to Merkel. That might actually be an approach that benefits both the UK and the EU in the long run.

That, if true, is totally disgraceful and unacceptable. Perhaps she will have the honesty to rename her department as The Bad for the Environment Department.

I'm building a hive when I get back to France!

Edit: Spread this around folks, this makes Brexit look like just a bit of a gaffe.

Behind the gentlemanly exterior lurks a bastard - beware!

(sigh) it isn't and won't. Brexit doesn't work, a belligerent, stupider than absolutely necessary brexit works even worse.

It's also far from inevitable.

jk

Since they have their faces covered (so we are unlikely to find out who they were) and this is the age of fake news, the tin hat wearer in me is wondering if these weren't paid stooges...

These Antifa are no more Labour supporters than the EDL are Conservatives. Bristol has more than its fair share. If they weren't "into politics" they'd be fighting after the football instead.

Would you like to elaborate.

The EU needs our exit fee and trade, just as we need theirs. The EU is an ideological, autocratic association, dominated by Germany, namely Merkel and Schauble. Perhaps having a major economy in Europe on the outside of the EU is a reality that will finally knock some sense into them. The treat that others may follow suit, Poland, Greece, Portugal and perhaps even Spain and Italy might just force the necessary reforms needed within the EU. Talking to many French people, who are fascinated by Brexit, the feeling I get is that the average French citizen isn't too enamoured with the EU either.

It maybe bad for us in the short to mid-term, but I still believe in the British spirit, we will survive. The Euro has been a disaster for the ordinary citizens of Western Europe. It's not all about just us.

I find myself in the strange position of hating the EU, but thinking it's a really bad idea to leave it. The only thing that is going to stop Brexit is May being toppled, yet another General Election and a miraculous win by the Lib Dems. There won't be another referendum. If the result is overturned, we might be risking something akin to civil war.

What, City fans? Never!

''They are sick of being told that being a hard working, middle class, white person is a bad thing, and that they should  be happy to pay for the lifestyles of others who are more valued as they are not hard working, or white.'' 

What do you mean by the above?

To be honest, you remind me of another Brexit voter I know of in real life, who once said that to say it's racist to use to the term 'paki' is discriminatory against white people. He couldn't explain why he thought that.

Which isn't to say Brexit voters are all the same, of course...

What's their ideology? Not one single ideology - seems to be a confused mixture of environmentalism, anti-nationalism, social democracy and neo-liberalism. If anything that's the problem: hard for people to get behind the EU when its aims are often unclear and even contradictory. (I'm pro-EU but that doesn't mean I don't recognise its faults.) As for autocracy, perhaps you should check the definition of autocracy. Europe is a long way off that. And if we are worried about the disproportionate influence of Germany, why are we leaving and putting ourselves in the position of having no counter-influence? It's not as if by leaving we will remove all effects of EU policy and action is it?

I agree with you on one point, the EU is to some extent an ideological organisation and this is an aspect that has scarcely been discussed during whole Brexit debate so far.

The EU is built on, I think, admirable community-wide principles of democracy, human rights, free trade and free movement.  It isn't just a convenient free trade bloc and we'll be losing a lot more than frictionless internal borders.  There's a lot to be said for being part of a larger union with a legal and ethical structure not subject to short-term electoral convenience of any one national party.  

Of course, neither side addressed these more philosophical aspects during what passed for pre-referendum debate and I'm afraid the Remain side must bear most of the responsibility.  

However, in your mind 'ideological' is immediately associated with 'autocratic' and you accuse German politician of dominating it, despite all the structures specifically designed to empower smaller member states (like the rotating presidency).  It's a bit rich when a powerful and potentially influential member like us plays such a half-hearted role and then leaves and then accuses the Germans of being in charge.          

Not true. They don't 'need' our nett budget contribution though I'm sure they'd like it they will cope without. As for trade, sure again they want it and some regions will be so badly damaged without it that need is appropriate but as a bloc they need us a lot less than we need them. Nobody is going to burn all our bridges on trade except by accident but it's important to understand we are negotiating from a position of relative weakness.

A bald assertion I largely disagree with.

None will be so rash in light of our mistake to fall into the same trap Cameron did at least until they see how we fare on the outside. My bet is we're the last one out for decades.

We're not in the Euro and British spirit is the bollocks that got us into this mess!

The thing that will stop brexit is the increasingly obvious inability of our politicians to deliver on any of their lies then their collective unwillingness to bear the blame for closing the deal. We're already IMO way past even odds on there being referendum to accept or reject terms, if there were even a couple of small wins for May and her clowns to cling to, for them to sell to Parliament I'd change my mind but the best we've had in a year of work is the serial exposure of lies to cover up the project's predicted economic failure and Ireland agreeing we can kick the border issue a year down the road which is helpful but it cannot remain unsolved and it cannot be solved from where we're going.

Our electoral system, our media, and personal biases simply do not enable the LibDems or a British Macron to sweep to power in a single cycle no matter how good their platform, no matter how desperate the need.

jk

but even richer because the UK was so influential in shaping policy within the EU........   

Sad, but true.

I would like to reemphasise that I think Brexit is a very bad idea, certainly for us in the short to medium term. When we joined in '73 the EEC was a great idea. Some of the consequences of treaties we have signed up to since, not so. The inclusions of states that were not at our economic or manufacturing levels has in particular done no favours for the wordinary people in Western Europe. Wages have stagnated and will do until the Eastern European countries catch up. That's great for the Eastern Europeans and for the Western manufacturers, but not so great for the ordinary citizens of Western Europe.

To tell the truth, after nearly 2 years, I'm finding the whole thing a bit of a yawn-fest now. If there is another referendum in the offing, I will certainly reengage.

And yes, the British spirit is indeed "bollocks", but it has got us through some very sticky times in the past and I'm sure it will in the future.

Are you talking about immigration, or multiculturalism, or something else?

I ask, because I've had an Indian family friend and her mixed race son as a mate since the age of 3, I wouldn't call saying so 'virtue signalling' since I was 3 at the time, and have never felt like I'm being told I'm less important than them because I'm white and middle class (I wouldn't think being hard working is class specific).

I'd just really like to know what you're getting at. If you could elaborate, that would be good. 

The way politics is now would suggest Boris as hes like Trump Dumpy, unpredictable. 

You're right that I don't know if these particular aresholes are actually members of Momentum but its entirely in keeping with their style.

Bricks through constituency windows, hounding long serving Labour councillors out of their jobs, intimidating Labour MP's who aren't 'on message', spitting at people at the Tory conference, journalists needing bodyguards at the Labour party conference, speakers at meetings calling for Tory MP's to be lynched,  verbally abusing and intimidating candidates in elections and so on.

I know you're quite dismissive of these things, I guess its easier to treat it as all a bit of a joke than face the reality that this is the ugly face of Corbyn's Labour that he is either unwilling or powerless to actually stop, meanwhile anyone who isn't a zealot like yourself can see who the nasty party really is.

Meanwhile deflect the issue because you know you can't defend the indefensible.

Are you still believing this bullshit, at least get uppity about something that's true. Even angela's backed down on this being aimed at her FFS!

Like all the other inconvenient truths I mentioned that you're ignoring then?  As per usual.

I don't think she ever said it was actually aimed at her, just funny how it appeared through her office window within a day of her launching a leadership challenge against St. Jeremy.

Are you suggesting there never was a brick through the window or is it just that now Corbyn looks vaguely like he stands half a chance of winning an election that she's sacrificed her priciples and fallen into line behind the great leader 'for the sake of party unity' and decided to forget all about it?

Don't you think if I had been talking about "immigration or multiculturalism" I would have mentioned "immigration or multiculturalism"?

A well there you go then, if you can think up "a friend" who had had some sort of vaguely related experience, then that is all the proof we need. I cannot be alone in thinking that you have an amazing collection  friends and acquaintances, all of whom seem to have experience which back up whatever points you are trying to make.

I don't think it needs elaborating on, I'm happy for it to stand as is.

It might come to you as a shock, Big Ger, but having non-white friends is neither amazing or uncommon.

And now we're changing it back again

It wasn't Angela's window!

This has all been done before, but I'll try and enlighten you since you seem incapable of reading the truth, maybe you're a DM reader, so I realise it might be difficult for you.

The window that was broken was in a shared hallway in an office of multiple occupancy. The Labour party window, the one with a Labour party poster wasn't ...... blah blah

Here read for yourself https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/07/17/angela-eagle-lied-about-her-offic...

Yes, your link is entirely disinterested and dispassionate.  I am sure it was all just a coincidence.

Well you appear to have been talking bollocks without actually mentioning them by name so I'm not sure your argument is totally watertight.

jk

I've no idea, you've been very vague about why you think what you've posted, which is why I ask. It's obvious what you think, but not 'why'.

Why do you think hard working white middle class people have been told they're less important than people who aren't?

So shoot me if I have friends of different races and religions, sexualities and gender identities (but not all) as a result of the people I know, what am I supposed to do, pretend that I haven't? It's just the kind of place Sheffield seems to be.

It's not about me, anyway, it's about why you think hard working white middle class people have been told they're less important than people who aren't. I'd appreciate you keeping things as civil as I have, by the way, without insinuating that I'm making things up. If you're happy to stand by what you've posted, you ought to be able to say why you think it, I would have thought.

Regards

I wouldn't waste your breath - Big Ger is a troll.

and just happens to be the truth, but hey ho!!

Even Angela admitted it wasn't her window on Peston,  Marr, or one of the others, but you know, let's not let facts get in the way of prejudice eh?

Firstly I note that you're still ignoring all the other points I made and secondly, no I'm not Mail reader, I've certainly never bought it and only occasionally read the odd story when a copy was lying around in a waiting room or suchlike. I've read far more in the Guardian but from where you're coming from they probably both look like right wing rags.

So regarding the brick incident, I thought from what you wrote I must have missed a follow up story so thanks for the link, it's f*cking hilarious. Was it written by a sixth former? It reads like the secret diary of Jeremy Corbyn aged 68 ¾. Did you post it for a joke or because that's what you regard as serious reliable journalism?

Yes I know the brick didn't go through her actual office window, that was part of the original story and yet at the time that comedy article was written (July 2016) Labour's NEC had already concluded:

"It's highly likely that the brick thrown through the window of Angela Eagle's office was related to her leadership challenge. The position of the window made it very unlikely that this was a random passer-by."

Specifically relating to the claims in your link that Angela Eagle LIED (their use of capitals just to make sure even thick people can understand):

“It said that claims it could have been targeting another company and Ms Eagle was "lying" about being targeted are "categorically untrue".

And they also found it was

"now clear and accepted by the NEC that homophobic abuse was perpetrated by some members of the local Party"

Its all from here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37702135

Though I suppose you'll dismiss all that because its from the BBC so must be 'fake news' but you stick to your personal web pages of some random freelance journalist for your news if its telling you what you want to hear.

Is that a prediction or a goal for you?

You might guess from some of my other posts that it doesn't make me happy. My Generation seem to be dragging a grey pall over the nation as they make their way off stage. 

The link was the first one I came too, and you seem to be missing the fact SHE (yes in capitals) admitted it wasn't HER window on TV, so there's very little proof or even circumstantial evidence it was any sort of protest against her at all.

If you read my post earlier, I wasn't defending cap bloke or trying to deflect from the fact there are some idiots in Momentum / Labour, but to bring up this brick falsity once again is simply bollocks.

I like my news a bit more truthy, obviously you don't seem to care.

The wanker in the clip might well be a rampant Anna Souberry supporter, but you've decided he's a Labour wanker, ergo all Labour supporters are just like him.

Here's some picture for you, it might make it easier to understand, what really went on

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=9&v=ppnKHmuVA1s

What is a troll?

It'll come as absolutely no shock to anyone that, yet again, you've twisted my words out of context so as to try to score cheap points. Grow up.

Oh well, now that is such a concise debunking of the point I was making!!

Laughable.

GT

Yet another one!! How sad, three consecutive non-replies, not one with even an attempt to debase the points raised.

No wonder people like JRM flourish when this is the sort of opposition faced!!

Nobody is doubting that you have friends mate, a nice guy like you should have many. But it's this constant need to introduce them into every thread, as if the experience of one person is some sort of evidence or proof of anything, it's just one person's life experience.

Sorry Timmd, but when we are debating the sort of people who may support JRM, and I offer a description of people who I think may support him, for you then to try to prove this wrong by offering yourself and your Indian mate as counter examples, makes me think you've either lost the plot or are acting dim for the sake of it.

What on earth do your offerings have to do with anything at all?

I described the sort of people who I think may support JRM. You countered that by saying that you and your Indian mate... well I'm not sure what....

So  are saying I was wrong to think that; "hard working, middle class, white persons" may support JRM  because you and your Indian mate do not? That must be the most bizarre thing I have encountered here...

Its someone who pasbury cannot debate, so constantly insults instead.

So you just link to the first bit of random sh*t you can find without appraising it's reliability which happens to be the personal pro Corbyn blog of a man once suspended from the Labour party for antisemitism. Good God, and you accuse me of being thick.

And for the second time, yes I know it wasn't her actual office window but did you read the judgement made by Labour's own NEC which said:

"It's highly likely that the brick thrown through the window of Angela Eagle's office was related to her leadership challenge. The position of the window made it very unlikely that this was a random passer-by."

Or are you ignoring that as well?

As the youtube clip shows, the hard left isn't exactly a hotbed of intelligent thought, its not beyond the bounds of possibility that the thick morons got the wrong window.

Ha ha ha, that's hilarious after posting links to that crap!

Yes and the moon is made of cream chesse.

And yet we know what Labour's NEC concluded when it examined all the evidence not just some random film of the outside of a building.

By the way, you still haven't had anything to say about all the other loveliness the hard left gets up to that I mentioned,

hounding long serving Labour councillors out of their jobs, intimidating Labour MP's who aren't 'on message', spitting at people at the Tory conference, journalists needing bodyguards at the Labour party conference, speakers at meetings calling for Tory MP's to be lynched,  verbally abusing and intimidating candidates in elections etc.

Anyone would think you were in denial.

I'm asking 'why' you think hard working white middle class people have been told they're less important. Can you explain why you think they have been, outline how you think that message had been delivered - and by whom?

As I have said previously, it isn't about me.  It's a pretty straight forward question I'm asking, to be fair. 

The manufacturer of the Whillans harness, that digs into your balls alarmingly when you fall.  I'm sure any similarity to Big Ger is purely coincidental.

Yes when I'm in a rush.

Is this the same NEC that tried to get ride of Jeremy Corbyn, twice? That changed the rules to make it even harder to get rid of the old guard Blarites, that NEC?

I doubt they'd miss the window with the big f*ck off Labour sign in it, if they're that dumb, it might be something more to do with the educational system.

Of course there have been changes in Labour, that's what JC stands for, that's precisely why people voted for him. If nothing changed we'd still have a choice between the Tories and A.N. Other Tony Blair. People want change and that's what JC is promising, that's why many people hate him because people don't want change, they want what they have now. Which is a load of people making decisions for people they have no connection with.

You believing any old shit you want to, I have no idea about Mr. Knobhead in the video, but you've already convict him and blamed Jeremy Corbyn for it. Seems a little bit more of a mob mentality, to me.

I counted five.

Considering it was one of yours, Thomas Mair in case you've all forgotten about him, that murdered a sitting MP, if I were you I'd keep my head down when it comes to trying to claim the moral high ground.