Thought for the Day

[Stavros]

Jericho, I think you know that I don't object to Labour's policies as much as I do the man, and I am not going to reverse the decision I made when Blair became leader to abandon support for the party. On the one hand your appeal for a different set of policies that benefits the people of the UK is laudable, on the other hand the IFS report today points out that Labour's spending plans do not include the reversal of around half of the welfare cuts that have been made since 2010. As most of the spending plans, Labour and Tory do not factor in the possible, and negative consequences of Brexit, if it happens, the manifesto contents of both parties are just aspirations, not promises.

[Jericho]

Then vote for the policies, you mooseknuckle, we're not voting for a president! (I'm sorry, I heard the term recently, and It amuses me). Corbyn's a politician, not a saint, he irritates the piss out of me too, sometimes. And like you, I left the party under Blairs tenure, it's just I'm not too stiff necked to U-Turn. But, during the leadership elections, who else would have brought the party back to the left? He was the joke candidate that turned round and bit the centrists in the arse.

Warning, virtue signalling ahead. I don't see my beliefs as 'laudable'. I do some work for a couple for local charities, mainly driving, health, a foodbank, and see the absolute desperation and shame on people's faces. How much further are they going to be pushed, how much further can they be pushed, before they start pushing back? I might have a social conscience, but I'm also quite practical. I've been on the front line, I don't want to be there again, thank you kindly.

Grrr, fucking Brexit. Cunting bastard Tories. Of all the divide and conquer con-tricks they've pulled on us, that was the worst. And again, Labour offer the only way out of it. Another vote and the softest of brexits or an end to it.

[Stavros]

Not enough there for me, and a confusing position on Brexit. Corbyn's and most of Labour's response to the 2016 Referendum was unequivocal: 'we will honour the result of the Referendum' -in other words, Labour must be a Leave party, and as the majority of Labour MPs voted for both Acts of Parliament that enable the UK to leave the EU, it is rank hypocrisy to suggest Remain is an option.
In some fantasy world, Corbyn claims a Labour government will re-negotiate the terms of withdrawal, offering the EU what, and getting what in return that has not already been done, twice? Then to put it to the 'people' in a Second Referendum is lunacy -a) it was a referendum that got us into this mess; and b) they only offer a referendum because they think Remain will win -what if it does not?
Throw in the economic downturn already happening and getting worse if the UK leaves, and how will a Labour government maintain the public services they are determined to improve?
I understand your position, but there is more to this than social justice, and if as I suspect Brexit is a mess, I don't see how the Conservatives can be re-elected if they win this election, and don't have a big enough majority to survive five years. In the interim Labour must re-organize itself, but you have to wonder if the party wants power or just wants to campaign. Sorry to sound so cynical, but I just can't believe Labour is failing to expose Johnson for the lies and sleaze that are his ID. Though I think the result may be closer than expected, I have this 1983 feeling all over again.

[Jericho]

Sorry to sound so cynical, but I just can't believe Labour is failing to expose Johnson for the lies and sleaze that are his ID. Though I think the result may be closer than expected, I have this 1983 feeling all over again.

BBC Trust: Laura Kuenssberg report on Jeremy Corbyn inaccurate, says BBC Trust
BBC Website: Still showing the 'edited' video

BBC: Johnson, You're not going on the Marr show until you do the Neil show.
Also BBC: Johnson, You can do the Marr show.


It's not 1983 I fear, it's 1990.

[filghy2]

I notice that he changed his profile recently. He's no longer in a pub in 'god's own country'; he's now with a bunch of young latino/as in 'hot latina land'. Maybe he's emigrated. Columbian webcam models seem to have been his sole interest here, apart from grudge-bearing.

If he is traveling the world, more power to him, though of course it sounds a bit bourgeois. What the hell, I figure he can only downvote every single post I've made one time.

Looks like I was on the money. http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...Colombia/page4

I seems that despite his class envy posturing, peejaye is definitely not a struggling member of the proletariat.

[AlexisDVyne]

Proletariat? Hahahha..

The proletariat died in 2008 and became the precarious..

You can now call them the prolecarious..

[Stavros]

I might have asked this before, but are Mitchell McConnell and Lindsay Graham by openly taking sides with the President rather than judging him on the facts available in an objective manner, failing to defend the Constitution of the US, and in doing so, can they be impeached -indeed, can all the members of the Senate who reject the rule of law be impeached?

[filghy2]

Only holders of public office can be impeached, but members of Congress can be expelled by a two-thirds vote of the chamber they sit in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expuls...tates_Congress

I'm not sure what happens to their seat - does their party get to replace them? In any case, it's a moot point unless the composition of the Senate changes significantly.

[blackchubby38]

I think the three pieces of shit that robbed and killed Tessa Majors should be charged as adults. Its obvious that they're not going to become productive members of society anytime soon, so its best just to keep them locked up as long as possible.

[Stavros]

If the President has been impeached by the House of Representatives, why would they then invite the same disgraced, impeached President to give them a 'State of the Union' speech? Would it not be better for the President to be told he cannot give a speech he has no moral authority to give, and also isolate him in his bedroom? Or would this be seen as spite, and backfire on the Democrats?