Jump to content


RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE (ISSUE 397 - MAY 2014): Available to download now. Get the app from Apple Newsstand or GooglePlay, or click here to read it online now at Pocketmags.com - Print edition in shops from Friday, or click here to get it delivered by post in the UK or worldwide.

Rugby League World - April 2014
League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Red Len ..strikes again?


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#21 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,156 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 02:05 PM

It's quite sweet that both Miliband's voted for each other..

and I think Diane Abbot voted for herself.



#22 Griff9of13

Griff9of13
  • Coach
  • 5,074 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 02:07 PM

and I think Diane Abbot voted for herself.

 

Are we supposed to be surprised by that fact? :unsure:


"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

#23 Steve May

Steve May
  • Coach
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 02:19 PM

Are we supposed to be surprised by that fact? :unsure:

All the candidates voted for themselves first. It would be a bit odd if they didn't..

That's me.  I'm done.


#24 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 28,392 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 02:24 PM

All the candidates voted for themselves first. It would be a bit odd if they didn't..

 

"I don't believe in my own policies but I expect everyone else to ..."


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#25 Steve May

Steve May
  • Coach
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 02:27 PM

there seem to be two themes here.  The raeson why I started the thread was to hear from the many Labour supporters on here what they thought  about the comment that "The Unite general secretary claimed that the Labour leader would be "cast into the dustbin of history" unless he abandons support for David Miliband's campaign managers, Jim Murphy and Douglas Alexander."

I think he's right to some extent. I think the "Blairites" want to fight the 1997 election all over again, but this isn't the late nineties.

From an electoral point of view, Blairism was an attempt capture the middle ground. It worked, brilliantly so. But I think at the moment the problem isn't getting Tories and Lib Dems to vote Labour, it's getting non-voters to voting Labour.

From a policy perspective, I thought Blairism was too timid in 1997, and it's way too timid now. "Thatcherism with a human face" will not work now. That time is gone and things have moved on.

That's me.  I'm done.


#26 Steve May

Steve May
  • Coach
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 02:28 PM

"I don't believe in my own policies but I expect everyone else to ..."

Was that Nick Clegg's Lib Dem leadership campaign slogan? It's no wonder he got beaten by the convicted liar and criminal Chris Huhne.

That's me.  I'm done.


#27 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 28,392 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 02:31 PM

Was that Nick Clegg's Lib Dem leadership campaign slogan? It's no wonder he got beaten by the convicted liar and criminal Chris Huhne.

 

I didn't vote for him.  I may have voted for Huhne.  It's a genuine can't remember.  I was underwhelmed by the contest.

 

"I look a bit like a Blair/Cameron love child" was probably the slogan.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#28 John Drake

John Drake
  • Admin
  • 7,131 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 03:44 PM

Listening to Red Len on BBC Radio Five Live yesterday morning brought back memories of  Militant Tendency...something he supported in the 1980s.  The question is: is he right?

 

 

http://www.guardian....nd-union-leader

 

No, he's quite clearly left. ;)

 

In many ways, by offering Ed Miliband the opportunity to slap him down in public, he is providing a valuable electoral service to the Labour Party by demonstrating that their leader is not as 'in hock' to the unions as their opponents would like everyone to believe.


John Drake
Site Admin: TotalRL.com
TotalRL.com
Email: john.drake@totalrl.com


#29 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 9,257 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 04:40 PM

... according to the daily express.  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

 

 

Still funny?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-20529245


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#30 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,156 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 05:00 PM

Are we supposed to be surprised by that fact? :unsure:

no, nor surprised that no one else did.



#31 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 28,392 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 05:06 PM

Still funny?
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-20529245

Why have you linked to an article that has nothing do with human rights?
Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#32 nadera78

nadera78
  • Coach
  • 2,804 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 05:16 PM

I think he's right to some extent. I think the "Blairites" want to fight the 1997 election all over again, but this isn't the late nineties.

From an electoral point of view, Blairism was an attempt capture the middle ground. It worked, brilliantly so. But I think at the moment the problem isn't getting Tories and Lib Dems to vote Labour, it's getting non-voters to voting Labour.

From a policy perspective, I thought Blairism was too timid in 1997, and it's way too timid now. "Thatcherism with a human face" will not work now. That time is gone and things have moved on.

Milliband's in a bit of a tricky position in regards the Blairites. Keep them front and centre and it immediately winds up people like me, who should be natural Labour voters (as it is I tend to vote for them through gritted teeth) but sidelining them runs the risk of having people outside the tent peeing in.

 

I guess the solution is to keep them involved, but in some hidden, insignificant way. Don't know how you do that though.


"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."
Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

#33 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 9,257 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 06:01 PM

Why have you linked to an article that has nothing do with human rights?

 

 

Because we have 18,000 foreign criminals in jail. When we try to send them back, we'll have 90% of them trying to claim a right to stay here under human rights legislation.


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#34 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 14,693 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 06:48 PM

IFrom a policy perspective, I thought Blairism was too timid in 1997, and it's way too timid now. "Thatcherism with a human face" will not work now. That time is gone and things have moved on.

 

Yes!  Labour must offer a radical alternative.  What's the point of being in power purely for the sake of being in power. The last government allowed the casino continue to operate as though nothing had happened - they just  used the proceeds differently.  When the crunch came as it was bound to sooner or later they were kicked out with very little done in terms of making ordinary voters' lives better long term.

The Tories have already extended the qualification period for unfair dismissal, shortened the notice period for redundancy, stopped legal aid in employment cases and are talking about no fault dismissal.  They are in the process of creating in people's minds a return to the deserving and undeserving poor.  Their welfare policies are already hitting the worst off after less than a month. There was an item on Radio Leeds yesterday about the doubling of use of food banks in Huddersfield.  They don't ###### about why should Labour!


"Your a one trick pony Trojan" - Parksider 10th March 2013

#35 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 28,392 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 06:55 PM

Because we have 18,000 foreign criminals in jail. When we try to send them back, we'll have 90% of them trying to claim a right to stay here under human rights legislation.

That's not what your article says.

Have you got anything that backs up your point?
Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#36 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 9,257 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 07:26 PM



Have you got anything that backs up your point?

 

No.If you're so concerned, you do the research.


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#37 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 16,592 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 08:34 PM

The convention on human rights is too important just to junk to get rid of 2 undesirables. If we're worried about falling foul of it maybe we should be asking why, and what other options are open to us that don't violate their human rights? Maybe we should obtain some evidence against them not based on torture? (which has always been known to produce dodgy results)

Neither is a British national and so don't have the "right" to be here. Therefore we would not be violating any rights by tossing them out.

 

British nationals have the right to be here and non-EU foreigners merely have the freedom to do so long as they have permission. 


Edited by Northern Sol, 25 April 2013 - 08:38 PM.


#38 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 16,592 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 08:36 PM

Millions.

 

His own rights included.

Nonsense.

 

The European Court of Human Rights is hardly the only body guaranteeing human rights in the UK. Leaving it would hardly cause the UK to become a totalitarian state with dissidents sent to the gulags. Which rights do you think we would lose by withdrawal? 



#39 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,077 posts

Posted 26 April 2013 - 08:27 AM

Neither is a British national and so don't have the "right" to be here. Therefore we would not be violating any rights by tossing them out.
 
British nationals have the right to be here and non-EU foreigners merely have the freedom to do so long as they have permission.

but likewise we have to kick them out for the right reasons, we can't just kick people we've allowed in out for no reason. And even more have to make sure that they aren't returning to unjust persecution. Our legal system doesn't allow evidence obtained through torture so its somewhat hypocritical for us to send someone to be tried on exactly that evidence. The new treaty if it can be proved enforceable, which would guaranty deportees protection from such evidence in a trial is a step I'm happy with.

The European convention on human rights is way too important for all our rights just to junk for this. Having not had a proper revolution and the chance to develop a constitution in this country most of our other rights come down from the magna carta.

#40 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 9,257 posts

Posted 26 April 2013 - 09:01 AM



The European convention on human rights is way too important for all our rights just to junk for this. Having not had a proper revolution and the chance to develop a constitution in this country most of our other rights come down from the magna carta.

 

But ther'es no reason why we can't draft and implement equivalent legislation that applies to all British citizens in the UK. If the non-Britons don't like it, they can leave.


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users