Westminster Politics

Paul the Wolf said:
Yes I have dual nationality.

To summarise the points.

1. There will be no renegotiation of the withdrawal agreement. Any alterations to the trade agreement will be minor.
This point is especially important for whichever party is talking about it. People say that the Tories negotiated a bad deal and that there were different types of Brexit available.

Whatever was negotiated this is how it was going to turn out, no matter how many bits of tweaking around the edges. Talk of being in the customs union and/or the single market but still being outside the EU makes no sense from whichever party is saying so. Either the UK is in it all or out of it all.

Thus until the UK does return eventually to the EU, the barriers , paperwork , trade difficulties will remain and actually get worse if they change standards and continue on the current path.

2) The CPTTP will not bring any advantage to the UK. There is talk of opening up to large markets because they are more developing than the EU for example. There are several problems with this. There was nothing stopping the UK trading with these countries before and they did, I did, despite the Brexit lies.
The rules of the CPTTP are in place and the UK have no say in them.
Why and what will the other CPTTP countries buy from the UK which they can't get from some closer country and at cheaper prices?
For the CPTTP countries they will be able to dump in the UK what others don't want.

Importing products into the UK which do not meet EU standards will impact sales to what will still be the UK's main market, the EU, even though the UK is outside teh EU.

I've tried to keep to the main points and could probably write a book on the problems I haven't mentioned.

3) UK standards. It is reported that the UK will shortly change the certification standards for products. The CE mark for EU standard products will change to UKCA. Still vague what this will apply to.

To sell in the UK products will need the UKCA mark. This poses several problems.
The UKCA will not be recognised elsewhere. Products that are EU certified are accepted in quite a few countries even outside the EU;
For EU countries to sell the products that this applies to then they will have to be certified for the EU and the UK; Double certification costs will probably mean countries won't bother with the UK.
This will also apply to countries outside the EU. For example a business in a developing country wants to sell its products in Europe. They won't want to pay for certification to CE standard which is acceptable I belive in about 50 countries and then pay for another certification that only covers the UK.

4) Asylum seekers/immigration.

Should the UK continue with its trajectory on asylum seekers and break international law/agreements or leave the ECHR then all trade deals are threatened by cancellation, including a threat to the Northern Ireland situation.

I have kept this quite brief and concentrated mainly on trade but there's so much more to say which has been covered in the main since 2016. Nothing that has happened since 2016 has remotely surprised me or changed my view on how riduiculous the decision to leave the EU was.

The question is regarding Starmer, is whether he is going to continue on the same trajectory as the Tories or is he going to reverse what has happened so far. If he is basing his plan on renegotiating the withdrawal agreement or make vast changes to the trade agreement, then his plan is finished before it starts. This is what concerns me.
Click to expand...

Excellent thanks. I am going to copy and paste it in an email to my MP and will await his response with much anticipation.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
The problem is that the UK isn't marching on the spot. The CPTTP takes the UK further steps away from the EU by harming the UK itself (even though they don't know it yet). The new UK standard certifications yet to be introduced will take the UK another few steps away not only from the EU but for trade with a lot of the rest of the world.

Not only Starmer , but the other members of the shadow cabinet talk of renegotiating the deal with the EU. That's not happening. Keeping the asylum policy will alienate the Uk from the EU and many other countries. Is Starmer going to reverse all these things? probably not, so he's taking the UK further away. The Tories will trash a few more things before they go.

His climate policy sounds like pie in the sky and he looks to be postponing that as well. No idea what's in his mind. Desperate to be elected with no vision, just bouncing around hoping to collar some votes.

This I thought would be the opportunity to get the UK back on track after the last terrible years but Labour haven't got the right leader.
Click to expand...

That is the point I think both of us are making, the UK cannot stay tied to the coat-tails of the EU, it has to press on with other options it has no choice, the choice to leave, ill-informed, mistaken or whatever, was made when the vote to leave was made, the die has been cast and an alternative for Britain's future is now needed; hence the likely need for a final solution to the Irish problem (unification) and a proper response to calls for recognition (at least) that Scottish Independence is a legitimate aspiration. These are likely to be the fundamental changes that the new Britain, outside the EU will need, including a new and written constitution.

Talk about renegotiation is 'pie in the sky' for many of the reasons you have cited previously. The EU could at some point in the future be willing to open a new negotiation, but not a renegotiation, the EU won that one they will not want anything to do with 'renegotiating' anything, why should they? This is 'kicking things into the long grass'. Starmer is aware of this and would want a new Britain (with a written constitution) in a much stronger position before returning to any semblance of any whole scale negotiations. Odd deals maybe done here and there if its in both interests, but beyond that its a sop to try to ease the conscience of those who want to vote labour now, but cannot forget Brexit.

Doesn't everybody's climate policy sound like pie in the sky?
Britain can make its self more efficient (even self sufficient in parts), more productive, less reliant on conventional/polluting sources for energy, it can embrace new and green technologies, etc. but it won't make a blind bit of difference as long as such as China, th US, Russia etc goes on blasting out carbon emissions etc. I am not arguing and I don't think Starmer is, that the original polluters must escape payment, but it will be of little consequence if the current day polluters carry on as they are.

It is an opportunity, one admittedly we were/are not, prepared for, but one we have to take to get on to a new track.
 
Last edited:


Khan wins the judicial review for ULEZ expansion that was contested by 5 tory councils.

Some hilarious meltdowns, especially since there were some anti-ULEZ protests in Liverpool and Edinburgh :wenger:
 
Maticmaker said:
IMO the Oil Crisis was the main catalyst for that ... 'Thatcherism' was a reaction to it. Maggie launched her 'theories' at just the right time and blew all opposition away. For a long time Labour couldn't find its way out of a 'paper bag'.

Arthur Scargill had been successful with his 'flying pickets' in the first Miners strike, but he didn't change his tactics for the second one and consequently Maggie was ready for him. Scargill led the Miners on a charge to a glorious defeat, that in the period and beyond that shattered thousands of lives and many of their descendants are still having to live with the consequences. The fallout effect on trades unionists not just in Mining, but all across British industry was devastating, and they were to suffer under the anti union laws brought in by the Tories. This was a major reduction in the power of unionised labour, that is now showing itself in the low wage/zero-hours/ working poor/etc, and the low numbers who are currently unionised
Decent paying Jobs didn't just disappear, they were never replaced!
Click to expand...
The 70s oil crises did a lot to feck up the Wilson/Callaghan record I agree. It seems to me Labour governments have been unlucky with international events, but I daresay that's my personal bias.

The big jump in unemployment was in 1980, by Thatcher, and was deliberate policy in my opinion, her strategy for putting the working class in their place. Into the 80s far from suffering from rising oil prices the UK benefited as North sea oil gave huge revenues. Which could have been invested in so many ways, but that wouldn't have fitted in with her aims, she spunked it on tax cuts and unemployment instead.
 
TheGame said:
Fecking double standard cnut

Click to expand...


Breaking:
Woke Racist and Xenophobe whines about being called a Racist and Xenophobe.
Woke Racist and Xenophobe whines about having his elite account closed because he hasn't got enough money.
Woke Racist and Xenophobe only accepts judgments from morons who think Brexit was a good idea.
Woke Racist and Xenophobe still tries to con large swathes of the population.
 
Maticmaker said:
Yes, but not in the beginning.
Corbyn's manifesto in the beginning brought hope, in particular in a few important areas that resonated with many people, Labour members or not. However, in my opinion there were two problems for Corbyn himself; the initial reaction and 'interest' shown over a broad spectrum of the public to his initial policy proposals went to his (or Labours) head but then he/ they went too far promising almost everything under the sun, including many things which did not carry universal belief and which many 'would be' Labour voters as well as many regular Labour voters got turned off. Secondly, Corbyn himself was a problem, in that so much of his political life in the Labour party itself was a example of constant rejection, across many years whatever the Labour leadership proposed, he found ways to oppose. He was also in many ways the very image of what I have referred to as being an international socialist first, a British socialist, not just second but way back down the scale.
Corbyn frightened away many because as @Buster15 points out he was completely out of his depth. As his dithering over Brexit exemplified.

What I would bring back into the fold, is not really a question for such as me, because after many years experience of being a Labour party member I eventually realised it would (probably) never be there again, like it was post WW2 and the opportunity to change the face of life for the ordinary man and woman, would never appear again, because the Party had lost touch with its roots. In fact in many ways it appeared to despise its own 'roots,' there was no longer aspiration in its message and also a lack of dedication to get into power, to face reality, to find ways to win. The Labour party had become completely absorbed in its own ideology and that 'image and posturing' was everything inside the party, but unfortunately not with the public.

I have to admit I have warmed to Starmer somewhat, although he has nothing of the personal magnetism of say a Tony Blair, he does appear to know what he's doing in plotting a route to not only winning, but carrying a large percentage of the public with him in the form of winning a healthy majority in Parliament. The major problems now facing the UK (as well as further afield) need to be addressed positively by Starmer; regeneration of the economy, more and better equipped housing (efficiency) for the future, taking back 'water management' into a form of public ownership which puts healthy regular supply , first, second and third in priorities; proper planning of migration that is purely based on the needs of this country; a realistic but purposely strategy for addressing climate change that balances future needs with present needs.
These are not easy things to deal with, but as Labour magnificently did after the WW2 with its Education and Health reforms, it needs to seek to improve life for the many not just the few..
Click to expand...

I do agree with you on a lot of your points around Corbyn and his persona, and understand why that put people off.

Corbyn re-engaged a lot of people into politics because he was offering something different. The message and policies were sound, but face wasn't. Corbyn spent his entre career on the side-lines taking controversial positions. To go from that to the arena of world leaders is one hell of a jump, especially if you're in your 60s at the tail end of your career. Despite that, Corbyn was a few thousand votes away from becoming PM in a coalition government back in 2017.

The 2019 election was a Brexit election and Labour had already resigned themselves to losing it, so the 2019 manifesto was used to include experimental polices just for the sake of attempting to get them into the public eye. It was disheartening to see realistic and popular policies get pushed out of discourse for attention grabbing stuff. Even though some of the policies included that were ridiculed at the time, like universal internet access, don't seem so far fetched anymore post pandemic. Not that anything any party said mattered other than Brexit in that election.

The well thought out 2017 manifesto was a sound basis for the future of the UK. Whoever followed Corbyn's after the inevitable defeat in 19 should have just stuck to that, like Starmer originally promised. They'd still have the commanding lead in the polls that they have now (thanks to Truss fecking the Tories), but with a mandate for change rather than just being a default alternative.

Maticmaker said:
The major problems now facing the UK (as well as further afield) need to be addressed positively by Starmer; regeneration of the economy, more and better equipped housing (efficiency) for the future, taking back 'water management' into a form of public ownership which puts healthy regular supply , first, second and third in priorities; proper planning of migration that is purely based on the needs of this country; a realistic but purposely strategy for addressing climate change that balances future needs with present needs.
These are not easy things to deal with, but as Labour magnificently did after the WW2 with its Education and Health reforms, it needs to seek to improve life for the many not just the few..
Click to expand...

This is what would have been, or at least started to be addressed if Labour's 2017 manifesto had been implemented. If Starmer was in charge in 2017 and stood on the same manifesto, would you have voted Labour?
 
TheGame said:
Fecking double standard cnut

Click to expand...


Coutts have already fecked up by revealing parts of his personal data. May as well go the whole hog and provide his risk assessment as PEP. I imagine Russian sanctions would be a big driver of his risk rating.
 
So it looks like the tories and sunak are going to double down on the whole 15 min city culture war thing... How long before he starts going on about the WEF...
 
Bert_ said:
This is what would have been, or at least started to be addressed if Labour's 2017 manifesto had been implemented. If Starmer was in charge in 2017 and stood on the same manifesto, would you have voted Labour?
Click to expand...

Sorry but this is too 'if only' for me. This is one of the problems and one of the reasons I left the Labour party, its been completely submerged in its own ideology and constantly tries to re-run things, starting with 'if only' we had done this or that, the trouble is it does exactly the same next time around. Hence your proposition... if Starmer was in charge and stood on the same manifesto etc. He wasn't and the final manifesto was seemingly worthy, but unobtainable, on its own merits.

I did in fact vote Labour in 2017, but it was as always more in hope than expectation, years of automatically voting Labour (from when I was a member of the party) 'kicked-in', but even on my way to vote I knew it was useless.

I agree Corbyn's introduction into mainstream politics did attract a lot of attention and in some case support, but equally he drove people away in their multitudes. Manifestos' for me are becoming something of a if our number comes up and everything is as we would want it, this is what we would do. The realism and sometimes even the ideological basis of manifestos doesn't even survive the run up to an election, never mind after it!

Starmer lacks a lot of what might be called 'star quality' but maybe that will work to his advantage, he will be judged on what he does, rather than on what he says he will do, but doesn't.
 
Maticmaker said:
Sorry but this is too 'if only' for me. This is one of the problems and one of the reasons I left the Labour party, its been completely submerged in its own ideology and constantly tries to re-run things, starting with 'if only' we had done this or that, the trouble is it does exactly the same next time around. Hence your proposition... if Starmer was in charge and stood on the same manifesto etc. He wasn't and the final manifesto was seemingly worthy, but unobtainable, on its own merits.

I did in fact vote Labour in 2017, but it was as always more in hope than expectation, years of automatically voting Labour (from when I was a member of the party) 'kicked-in', but even on my way to vote I knew it was useless.

I agree Corbyn's introduction into mainstream politics did attract a lot of attention and in some case support, but equally he drove people away in their multitudes. Manifestos' for me are becoming something of a if our number comes up and everything is as we would want it, this is what we would do. The realism and sometimes even the ideological basis of manifestos doesn't even survive the run up to an election, never mind after it!

Starmer lacks a lot of what might be called 'star quality' but maybe that will work to his advantage, he will be judged on what he does, rather than on what he says he will do, but doesn't.
Click to expand...

I was one of those who only voted Labour in 2019 because of tradition.
I initially thought that his appointment was quite interesting and a bit refreshing. But it was soon obvious that the man was completely out of his depth and had no leadership qualities at all. And when all is said and done, that was his role; to lead. And saying in public that he would not use nuclear weapons for example was typical of his many failings.

Edit. I was referring to Corbyn.
 
Last edited:
Buster15 said:
I was one of those who only voted Labour in 2019 because of tradition.
I initially thought that his appointment was quite interesting and a bit refreshing. But it was soon obvious that the man was completely out of his depth and had no leadership qualities at all. And when all is said and done, that was his role; to lead. And saying in public that he would not use nuclear weapons for example was typical of his many failings.

Edit. I was referring to Corbyn.
Click to expand...

To be honest having run across Jeremy when in the Party, I initially held my head in my hands and groaned when he was elected leader. However, for a lot of the public he was a fresh face and some of the policy options did seem feasible.... it's just it was Jeremy!
True to form (and ability) he quite soon went over, or allowed himself to go OTT and that's why in 2019 I didn't vote. However, it wasn't a real sacrifice because Labour always wins where I live, so my vote would not have made any difference...at least I tell myself that!

Edit Yes, I gathered that ;)
 
Last edited:
Maticmaker said:
Sorry but this is too 'if only' for me. This is one of the problems and one of the reasons I left the Labour party, its been completely submerged in its own ideology and constantly tries to re-run things, starting with 'if only' we had done this or that, the trouble is it does exactly the same next time around. Hence your proposition... if Starmer was in charge and stood on the same manifesto etc. He wasn't and the final manifesto was seemingly worthy, but unobtainable, on its own merits.

I did in fact vote Labour in 2017, but it was as always more in hope than expectation, years of automatically voting Labour (from when I was a member of the party) 'kicked-in', but even on my way to vote I knew it was useless.

I agree Corbyn's introduction into mainstream politics did attract a lot of attention and in some case support, but equally he drove people away in their multitudes. Manifestos' for me are becoming something of a if our number comes up and everything is as we would want it, this is what we would do. The realism and sometimes even the ideological basis of manifestos doesn't even survive the run up to an election, never mind after it!

Starmer lacks a lot of what might be called 'star quality' but maybe that will work to his advantage, he will be judged on what he does, rather than on what he says he will do, but doesn't.
Click to expand...

I think we look at things through a different lens. I don't see realistic policy proposals as ideology and have no issue with using historical data to shape future policy. A lot of people seem to be completely jaded by politics and have no faith whatsoever in any ambition being achieved. The likes of Starmer only furthers this notion. If this carries on then it will be how democracy dies.

We need to move beyond voting for characters and start voting for substance. I've said it before and will keep saying it. We need to move to a PR system were people can vote for what they believe in, rather than having to vote for the least worse option.
 
TheGame said:
Fecking double standard cnut

Click to expand...

Remember when tories and the right wing media blasted gary Lineker for comparing the tories immigration talk to 1930's Germany and yet here we are, sunak and tories now defending a politician who was the ex leader of basically a neo nazi party...
 
I'm guessing that the whole thing about going after trans people wasn't getting them enough right wing votes so now they're going after the planet instead. I'm actually quite impressed by Sunak and his crew. Just when I think they can't become bigger cnuts than they already are they still surprise me.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
I'm guessing that the whole thing about going after trans people wasn't getting them enough right wing votes so now they're going after the planet instead. I'm actually quite impressed by Sunak and his crew. Just when I think they can't become bigger cnuts than they already are they still surprise me.
Click to expand...
They are doubling down on the Ruislip "success".
 
It’s madness how right wing the tories have gone in the last decade.
Remember, there is no UKIP because the tories and UKIP have collapsed into one party.
 
Adisa said:
It’s madness how right wing the tories have gone in the last decade.
Remember, there is no UKIP because the tories and UKIP have collapsed into one party.
Click to expand...
Farage has a lot to answer for.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
The British media giving him a massive, regular mainstream platform have alot to answer for.

Especially considering the anti semitic allegations against him.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how he seems bulletproof from being blacklisted like every other anti semitic person and evidence is there with forage that he had these views, just look at how mainstream media TV outlets and rags has treated corbyn compared to this neo nazi.
 
Bert_ said:
I think we look at things through a different lens. I don't see realistic policy proposals as ideology and have no issue with using historical data to shape future policy. A lot of people seem to be completely jaded by politics and have no faith whatsoever in any ambition being achieved. The likes of Starmer only furthers this notion. If this carries on then it will be how democracy dies.

We need to move beyond voting for characters and start voting for substance. I've said it before and will keep saying it. We need to move to a PR system were people can vote for what they believe in, rather than having to vote for the least worse option.
Click to expand...

Yes probably we do, what maybe realistic viewed through your lens, through mine would be as idealistic. With ideology I have no problem so long as it allows for variation to suit time and situation and does not become all pervading and in the worst case of in-house party ideology, it can become simple 'navel-gazing.'

Similarly application of historical data, has to be more than a 'rinse and repeat' exercise which in my experience has often been the case with Labour; the party at one time became past masters in telling the electorate "you just don't get it". Ambition starts with personal aspiration, this was for a time all but annihilated in the Labour party. Starmer at least seems to be trying to resurrect it.

Whilst generally agreeing with your belief about voting for substance rather than characters, the substance has to be removed from the characters and with an electorate generally not that interested or clued-up in politics, that separation is very difficult to achieve. PR may offer some chance of spreading the influence if not the power, (not actually convinced on the 'power thing') but the last time the public was consulted, I think during the Tory/Lib-dem coalition, it didn't gain much traction.

As I have stated elsewhere, I have become something of an old cynic, especially on Labour party matters, the crucial factor was when I woke up one day,(back in the day), and realised that Labour had lost touch with its roots and I subsequently resigned from the party.
I am in my late 70's now but still live in hope of seeing a Labour government 'fit for office' with a solid majority, that can, as it were " stand on the shoulders of the giants of the past" as after WW2 and come up with policies like Health and Education that change the lives of millions of ordinary folk for ever.
 
They're going to sign lots of outrageous deals for their mates in the next year. It's horrible to watch, real scorched earth stuff.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
I'm guessing that the whole thing about going after trans people wasn't getting them enough right wing votes so now they're going after the planet instead. I'm actually quite impressed by Sunak and his crew. Just when I think they can't become bigger cnuts than they already are they still surprise me.
Click to expand...
It just goes to show that it's bever been about policy or the what's best for Britain. It's all about staying in power. I can not stress how much I fecking hate the Tory party right now.

At least with Thatcher (another one I disliked) you knew she believed in the policies despite the fact they fecked a lot of us. Now days the Tory party don't seem to believe in anything, just a desperate attempt to grab votes. It's very Trumpesque.
 
TheGame said:
Russian jobs

Click to expand...

I just see it as an establishment handover. Look at the frame.

Ban new oil and gas licences
Rely 100% on imports
Protect Russian jobs
Risk UK security

Starmer will then, knowingly, say that he is not "protecting Russian jobs", will diversify (look at all available options) when it comes to oil and gas, and therefore protect UK security. And then people will say, Starmer has betrayed the climate cause (just stop oil). After which, what? Someone else will say, "he doesn't really mean any of it, he just has to say these things because the country is so far right-wing". Predictable clownshow nonsense.
 
neverdie said:
I just see it as an establishment handover. Look at the frame.

Ban new oil and gas licences
Rely 100% on imports
Protect Russian jobs
Risk UK security

Starmer will then, knowingly, say that he is not "protecting Russian jobs", will diversify (look at all available options) when it comes to oil and gas, and therefore protect UK security. And then people will say, Starmer has betrayed the climate cause (just stop oil). After which, what? Someone else will say, "he doesn't really mean any of it, he just has to say these things because the country is so far right-wing". Predictable clownshow nonsense.
Click to expand...

That's pretty accurate to be fair. I'm not saying they've given in as such but I don't think the Tories expect to win anymore. They're trying to minimise seat losses whilst pushing Labour in it's direction.
 
The environment is the next battleground for the Tories to distract people from their shit record on pretty much everything they've done to this country. Fanning the culture war flames. ****ing parasites.
 
A firm founded by Rishi Sunak’s father-in-law signed a billion-dollar deal with BP two months before the prime minister opened hundreds of new licences for oil and gas extraction in the North Sea.

In May, the Times of India reported that Infosys bagged a huge deal from the global energy company which is thought to be the second-largest in the history of the firm.

The Indian IT company is owned by the prime minister’s wife’s family although Sunak has insisted the matter is of “no legitimate public interest”.
Click to expand...

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/p...fore-pm-opened-new-north-sea-licences-353690/
 
Don't we have an office of fair trading in this country? Probably under the Tory thumb?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.