news & politics:discussion

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, mattiloy said:

Three right wingers

I think calling Nandy and Rayner right wing is really pushing the definition. Nandy and Rayner are pretty much bang in the middle of labour in my view.

[kaosmark2]

4 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Agreed Burnham is the labour version of Liz Truss who will change his political ideals when it suits. It worked for her (in terms of getting in power, but not keeping it) so we will see if it works for him.

He's stuck to the same noises for nearly 6 months now. Probably a record.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, pink_triangle said:

I think calling Nandy and Rayner right wing is really pushing the definition. Nandy and Rayner are pretty much bang in the middle of labour in my view.

I'm pretty sure Nandy is more on the left of the party than the right. She has the added benefit of being from the North and is also a really good front bench politician too. Cummings also said that if Labour wanted too win then they should have Nandy as leader.

[kaosmark2]

Just now, Ozanne said:

Cummings also said that if Labour wanted too win then they should have Nandy as leader.

I don't think anything Cummings says is meaningful, unless it's further evidence of Tory corruption.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, kaosmark2 said:

I don't think anything Cummings says is meaningful, unless it's further evidence of Tory corruption.

Yes I did think as I wrote it that it might not be a good thing!

[fraybentos1]

1 hour ago, mattiloy said:

Three right wingers

Did you not say you voted Nandy in the last leadership election? I could have sworn you did

[Neil]

17 hours ago, Crazyfool01 said:

surely thats it for Braverman now ?

 

i reckon that bravermon is as shameless as SPAFFER SO WON'T RESIGN.

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, Neil said:

i reckon that bravermon is as shameless as SPAFFER SO WON'T RESIGN.

probably ... she has blood on her hands now ... although seems to be less of a story now ... wonder if Starmer will use it as any attack line in PMQs 

[steviewevie]

I like Andy Burnham, but he does shift his position to help his own cause some times, which is not necessarily a bad thing, a lot of them do. Like Starmer.

[steviewevie]

Apart from a deal on reparations, latest COP looks a bit of a fail. Have to say I like Alok Sharma as our representative, he does seem to take it as seriously as it is.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Apart from a deal on reparations, latest COP looks a bit of a fail. Have to say I like Alok Sharma as our representative, he does seem to take it as seriously as it is.

Genuine question, have any COPs been a success?

[steviewevie]

5 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Genuine question, have any COPs been a success?

I guess they have different levels of success. Paris was considered a success at the time.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

I guess they have different levels of success. Paris was considered a success at the time.

Yeah I suppose so, I guess history will judge depending on actions.

[Neil]

1 hour ago, Crazyfool01 said:

probably ... she has blood on her hands now ... although seems to be less of a story now ... wonder if Starmer will use it as any attack line in PMQs 

starmer needs the tories to be claiming to have fixed the migrants problem, so it cant be used against labour in an election campaign.

[kaosmark2]

42 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

I like Andy Burnham, but he does shift his position to help his own cause some times, which is not necessarily a bad thing, a lot of them do. Like Starmer.

When he lost a leadership bid to Ed Miliband, I remember him saying one thing one day, and the exact opposite at another conference the next. It doesn't come across to me as changing his mind, or even shifting position, just vote-chasing flip-flopping without sincerity.

[kaosmark2]

11 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Yeah I suppose so, I guess history will judge depending on actions.

Only if there is a future to have a history in.

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, kaosmark2 said:

When he lost a leadership bid to Ed Miliband, I remember him saying one thing one day, and the exact opposite at another conference the next. It doesn't come across to me as changing his mind, or even shifting position, just vote-chasing flip-flopping without sincerity.

I think the reality is that politically Burnham is probably in the same space as Rayner, Nandy and Starmer. In going to the left to try and get support of the members he is just doing what Starmer did in the leadership contest.

[steviewevie]

[hodgey123]

On 11/18/2022 at 8:45 AM, Neil said:

his pension income is taxable, if he gets enough to meet the tax threshold.

Yeah I know that, but the 20/40/45% tax the government get back is still less than not paying him a pension he does not need in the first place?

[clarkete]

44 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

BBC boycott World Cup opening ceremony and instead lecture the country on how they should feel.

China would be proud of such state controlled media output.

You seem confused. Allowing the presenters to express their personal opinions is the opposite of your characterisation. 

[Crazyfool01]

57 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

BBC boycott World Cup opening ceremony and instead lecture the country on how they should feel.

China would be proud of such state controlled media output.

Or just provide an alternative viewpoint which isn’t untrue ? 

[pink_triangle]

11 minutes ago, clarkete said:

You seem confused. Allowing the presenters to express their personal opinions is the opposite of your characterisation. 

They could not take a salary, refuse to be on the presentation team and still express their personal opinion.

[Crazyfool01]

Just now, Barry Fish said:

But at the same time deny the nation the world cup opening ceremony while delivering an openly political statement ?  Is this the BBC you want ?  if so - it won't survive much longer...  its a sad route for the BBC to take...  I

Not bothered personally about watching openning ceremony and I’d rather the statement . There are many hours of coverage ahead 

[steviewevie]

Qatar's dodgy human rights and FIFAs overall dodginess  has been all over the news in the lead up, they couldn't not talk about that...but it's still the world cup so you can't expect them not to be there. But I guess everything has a limit, if the country had apartheid would they be there?

[Crazyfool01]

Just now, Barry Fish said:

For once try to think beyond your own wants and think about the greater meaning 

Bbc refusing to brandcast major global event for political reasons..

Think about what that means...  sad you don't see the issue 

I’m not bothered about watching the ceremony because I only want to watch the football … not the bullshit celebration stuff … and the bbc are broadcasting the event in fact many many hours of it so if they do some stuff for a bit of balance then great