Sorry if this has been posted before or elsewhere: Just read in German media that the EU wants to put Brexit negotiations on hold and re-start after the election.
General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
His argument never contradicted his own stance though. It was quite clear, he thought the EU had its faults, as he has said before, but voting out would give an authoritarian tory party carte blanche to destroy workers rights, the nhs and social care in this country, so he thought voting remain was the best policy under the circumstances.
He was right.
Then the morning after the vote he said article 50 should be triggered immediately, then he whipped the party to vote for article 50 to be triggered without getting any amendments. The thing with Corbyn and the EU is that he just doesn't really care.
He's never hidden his position, which as I understand it is exactly as you outline, and, ironically, his principled and nuanced positions (he isn't just black & white generally and advocates what he believes in) are exactly what has him seen as unelectable by lots of people who probably agree with a much of what he says and complain about lying un-principled politicians. You know, "he wears cords so he must be crap...if only he was a power dressing dis-ingenuous bastard" sort of arguments
Getting article 50 over and done with is important. I lost a significant chunk of money simply because the uncertainty in the 9 fecking months it took to enact article 50 meant I couldn't sign long term deals with EU customers as they had no real idea what the hell was going to happen. For me, pushing article 50 through was the best thing he has done. It was never going to be stopped, so what is the point of delays, other than costing thousands of businesses in this country money?
Money doesn't disappear, but the debt does grow.
How is it not true that we are piling debt onto our children? 5% of the current budget just goes to paying back the debt. Of course we borrow more each year to pay it. As that number increase, the budget each year becomes less about paying pensions and paying welfare, and more about paying debt, debt.
If we give up paying it back, we default.
Most of our debt is owned by the richest in Britain and the World.
Fair enough. I have misinterpreted his position but he seems woolly and unclear on the whole issue.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...backs-post-brexit-membership-eu-single-market
He wants single market access only with his own choice of cherry picking. The 'a la carte' type of deal that we are told is not on the table.
The thing is, to sad cnuts like us who actually follow politics this stuff is pretty obvious. To people who only pick up bits of info off the nightly news or from an occasional Facebook post, they only see whats on the surface. A huge number of people who voted Corbyn and joined the Labour party for him were people who hadn't been interested at all in politics until things started going to shit, and then this guy came along who sounded like he spoke for them for a change. They got a shock when it turned out some of his views really aren't that aligned to the modern internationalism many young and middle aged people take for granted on the left.
We pay a sizeable chunk of that to ourselves though, another third is a saving (our interest is a gain elsewhere) towards pension funds we'll all claim or future bond holders. The issue is foreign debt really, i dont think you can make much of an argument for a benefit there aside from ROI. However that foreign debt is largely foreign pension funds, our own pension funds of course hold foreign debt quite a lot of US debt is ours.
Interest payment growth against GDP is the key chart and its not that bad at all. There's a reason we're not crippled by WW2 and older debts on our books. We suffered from an economic event that needed monetary reaction hence our debts.
Off topic now but debt is far more than just a burden on our children and simple language to make it sound like a payday loan is as bad as false news
He has principles. But if you don't like them, he has others.
They're doing a bad job now agreed but until 12 months ago the plan was working. The deficit was reducing.
If we go the spending route we are simply burying the problem for future generations to address, and it will be much worse by then.
Statistics I saw in this very thread don't suggest otherwise. Plus, the basic figures are fairly hard to argue. Labour created a huge bubble that blew up in their face.
The biggest problem with the deficit is that you like voting in parties that offer lower taxes then theres no money coming in,.i pay around double the tax in nl then I would for the same salary in the uk. So you keep your shitty infrastructure and crap services but hey, you can afford an extra pint a week.
He didn't push through article 50, it was passing through regardless if Labour’s position. My point is that if he was supposedly campaigning to remain because the Tories would do terrible things with their Brexit deal, it doesn't make a great deal of sense that he'd happily vote for it to go through without a single amendment, no commitments to the single market or workers rights, nothing for EU citizens with residency, nothing.
It sticks in the craw because he got his boost in the 2015 leadership election because the rest abstained on the welfare bill for political reasons, and his supporters have used this against everyone else in the party at every opportune moment to highlight his ideological reliability, that he'll do what the party's voters want, not the Tories or Ukippers that they want to win over. Yet on the first big issue facing his leadership, he's done exactly the same thing.
So what certainty is there now? Would Hard Brexit not prevent you from signing deals in the EU altogether? Are you considering moving abroad?
He's asked if being gay is a sin. Not if homosexual sex is a sin.
What's his take on rimming?
Not sure he's ever been asked. You got any political journalist friends who are leaving their job in the near future?
He's been asked if homosexual sex is a sin a fair few times and hasn't been able to answer, though. Quite a lot of people in the CofE think being gay is fine, providing you are abstinent.
No real certainty until we see what the outcome is. The point is that article 50 had to be enacted to get to the point where we know where we stand. The longer it was delayed, the longer we are in a sort of no-mans land for trade with the EU.
Yes, with a hard brexit things are going to get complicated, in truth any sort of brexit makes things more difficult, but that ship has sailed. We have been looking at options on the mainland, but I think in about 12 months we will know what direction brexit is taking and can then make some informed decisions.
There's a very wierd peice in the guardian saying who cares, basically that as long as his policy isn't homophobic then it shouldn't make a difference. That's very unguardian like, the mental gymnastics must be incredible.
Is it?
His voting record on LGBT rights is fine I don't really see the hypocrisy in thinking it doesn't matter what someone thinks in their personal life as long as they are doing the right thing in Parliament.
Personally I just don't like having party leaders who can't give a binary answer to whether homosexual sex is okay or not. I think it legitimises homophobic attitudes.
Corbyns left it deliberately vague but Labours position on state aid rules appears to rule out any form of soft Brexit.
http://labourlist.org/2016/12/corby...for-britains-membership-of-the-single-market/
'My personal belief is that Enoch Powell was right but I accept my party's views are different and I shall represent them and not my own desire to get rid of the blacks'.
The guardian remains my primary source of news im not sure ive ever known them to take a only actions count approach to anything especially issues like feminism, gay rights.
Sounds like you are in a similar position to us. Thats exactly what management have said here.
I appreciate its a difficult debate to have and that people more personally affected by negative attitudes and internalised discriminatory beliefs (to say nothing about overt discrimination) are going to feel strongly about it.
But I'd argue that the focus on Farron's personal beliefs on the matter (if they are what you say they might be) is misplaced and risks being counter-productive and that it is some religious teaching on homophobia that legitimises homophobic attitudes.
My worry is that if you reject people who are willing to allow others to do what they want, even if they think its morally wrong, as not good enough and incompatible with liberal thinking, then you risk pushing them towards a much more dangerous brand of religious bigot.
Two nonsensical statements.
Size of debt doesn't matter. It's how well you can afford to service your payments that does. As long as you grow the economy quicker than your payments growth rate you're fine.
I'm not sure what Labour did to build up the sub prime mortgage crises in America, please enlighten me
If being born is a sin, I'm not sure how much the rest matters, really.
This appeared on my facebook: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...RKwztzY9KSI_2BMaI1bU8/htmlview?sle=true#gid=0
Which seats are Lib Dems and which are Labour (if you want to defeat the Conservatives).
Which seats are Lib Dems and which are Labour (if you want to defeat the Conservatives).
I do personally think it is compatible with liberal thinking. I just don't judge politicians in a liberal manner. Every vote for his party is seen as justification for everything about him. I just want him to lie and say it's fine, so a few million people aren't voting for a man with a deliberately ambiguous position on homosexuality.
This is pretty much his argument. 'I'm a sinner, you're a sinner, so what does it matter if I think practising homosexuality is a sin' is basically how he's stated it previously.
The focus is on farron for this.
Here's a thing, may is as much a religious fruitcake as he is, claiming god is guiding her and all, and her voting record is, shall we say, more suspect in terms of equality and inclusion, I'd love her to be asked that same question.
Here's a thing, may is as much a religious fruitcake as he is, claiming god is guiding her and all, and her voting record is, shall we say, more suspect in terms of equality and inclusion, I'd love her to be asked that same question.
On the other hand if it convinces liberal minded religious sorts that to stay that way rather than gravitate towards regressive policies and parties isn't that better overall?
Well, I was hoping that people might actually start thinking this way instead of using it as a not-so-obvious way out of answering a question in a way that would damage them publicly.
That's a really negative way of looking at it. I think it's a fairly positive demonstration that one can maintain religious beliefs about an issue without wanting to force those beliefs on everyone else.
It's also a much more Christian attitude towards homosexuality. "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone".
I'd say so. I just find that less likely.
I certainly agree with that. It just doesn't stop it being preferable, in my view, to saying homosexual sex is okay.
It is strange given the hullabaloo of Brexit and the nashing of teeth that followed the result, that people would still rather vote for the party that made it possible and who refuse to slow down as we approach this apocalyptic chaos, than choose an alternative party that pethaps doesn't want to starve poor children.
then why not just state that when asked..... its not bloody hard.