UK - A one party state

The Scum paper - hardly worthy of prefixing the description with news, is advocating aTory party leafing Britain with the hope that all opposition is irrelevant and must be discounted.
I cannot show the link - just read the paper.

Is this healthy for Britain, or is Britain stronger with a powerful opposition holding the government to account?

Or do rhe Scum and Teresa May plan to turn Britain into anoth version of North Korea ?

Bullshit !!

What is the Scum paper?

Angry Andy wrote:The Scum paper - hardly qorthy of prefixing the description with news, is advocating aTory party leafing Britain with the hope that all opposition is irrelevant and must be discounted.
I cannot show the link - just read the paper.

Is this healthy for Britain, or is Britain stronger with a powerful opposition holding the government to account?

Or do rhe Scum and Teresa May plan to turn Britain into anoth version of North Korea ?

But Andy the opposition is irrelevant at the moment
That is simple a fact.
That is down to Labour being led by the Far left
Surely like me you hold disdain for any extreme views whether left or right?
I would rather see a strong opposition in either Labour or Liberal, but Labour has been hijacked by the Far left who are full of antisemitic racists. We both detest racism, so surely you would rather see Labour rid themselves of this extreme racist element?

I would like a new centre left Lib/Labour party, unifying the best of both. There are plenty of high quality PM's from each - which could really challenge the present government. A party such as this would probably draw skeptical members from the tories and UKIP as well.

nicko wrote:Bullshit !!

Yet another thought provoking comment from Tommy's rival as forum genius.

Angry Andy wrote:

nicko wrote:Bullshit !!

Yet another thought provoking comment from Tommy's rival as forum genius.

Says the person who can't post a link and can't even name the paper.

Angry Andy wrote:I would like a new centre left Lib/Labour party, unifying the best of both. There are plenty of high quality PM's from each - which could really challenge the present government. A party such as this would probably draw skeptical members from the tories and UKIP as well.

I agree it would be good, but the problem is labour is led by Far left racists.
This is a fact and I will reason why.

Both of us would never stand in the way of the self determination of the Scottish people if they so wished to have an independent state. Yet on the Far left they think Israel should not exist and we have Corbyn who is friends with both Hamas and Hezbollah that deny and refuse to accept the existence of Israel. Both are extremist Islamist terrorist groups. I do not support the Likud party in Israel and think they are a hinderance to peace, but they are tame compared to Hamas and Hezbollah. They being some of the worst abusers of human rights. Now its absolutely fine to criticize Israel and champion a Palestinian state. Its not acceptable to wish to eradicate the Jewish state in order for this to happen, when both can exist.

I mean it would be like championing the Serbians wanting to eradicate the Bosnian Muslims, to make Bosnia part of Serbia again. The Far left champion hate and not coexistence. They back extremists who wish to deny the only Jewish state in existence, even though there is 18 Arab states and countless more Muslim nations. 

People have woken up to this double standard and the hate by this Far Left Labour leadership. You either champion self determination and universal human rights or as seen back this Labour Government who is intent on forcing their way into power. Even their own supporters of the Far Left call for revolution. They care nothing for the views of others, accept that of themselves. Making them no better than the Far right.

I think Corbyn will have cause the death of labour and future is in a progressive Liberal Party.

Thorin wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:The Scum paper - hardly qorthy of prefixing the description with news, is advocating aTory party leafing Britain with the hope that all opposition is irrelevant and must be discounted.
I cannot show the link - just read the paper.

Is this healthy for Britain, or is Britain stronger with a powerful opposition holding the government to account?

Or do rhe Scum and Teresa May plan to turn Britain into anoth version of North Korea ?

But Andy the opposition is irrelevant at the moment
That is simple a fact.
That is down to Labour being led by the Far left
Surely like me you hold disdain for any extreme views whether left or right?
I would rather see a strong opposition in either Labour or Liberal, but Labour has been hijacked by the Far left who are full of antisemitic racists. We both detest racism, so surely you would rather see Labour rid themselves of this extreme racist element?

Just like the nazis...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thorin wrote:

But Andy the opposition is irrelevant at the moment
That is simple a fact.
That is down to Labour being led by the Far left
Surely like me you hold disdain for any extreme views whether left or right?
I would rather see a strong opposition in either Labour or Liberal, but Labour has been hijacked by the Far left who are full of antisemitic racists. We both detest racism, so surely you would rather see Labour rid themselves of this extreme racist element?

Just like the nazis...

Wrong, the Nazi's hated many racial groups

The Far left just hate Jews

Both hate jews and love Muslims...

Tommy Monk wrote:Both hate jews and love Muslims...  

What about Blacks?

Slavs?

Homosexuals?

Gypsies?

Lefties

Take your time

Andy ,I say "bullshit" because that's all your post is, I don't have to elaborate. Why say a lot of words when this one describes your post perfectly?

If you haven't got anything nice to say?

And it is a problem having only one major credible party. Sadly the main culprit here is Labour, although the media certainly have played a large part to.

Eilzel wrote:If you haven't got anything nice to say?

And it is a problem having only one major credible party. Sadly the main culprit here is Labour, although the media certainly have played a large part to.

Sorry Eilzel but the media?

Labour have sunk themselves.

Should this not be reported?

Would you say the media have played a large part in the downfall of UKIP as well?

Its easy to blame the media, when I agree they can be biased, but people can see for themselves where there is something very wrong.

Why do you think many people have left UKIP recently?

Because they have further shifted right and they were only a one policy party, brexit.

Labour have shifted further left

No matter how a media portrays something, the nation of people are not stupid and can see how something is wrong.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:
Yet another thought provoking comment from Tommy's rival as forum genius.

Says the person who can't post a link and can't even name the paper.

Try WH Smith. Thats where I read it. Cretin.

Labour are in a poor position at this juncture - the problem is they have a good number of quality MP's who will make credible cabinet members, but no one is presently prepared to stand up and challenge Corbyn.
I suspect that will happen after the GE.

Angry Andy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Says the person who can't post a link and can't even name the paper.

Try WH Smith. Thats where I read it. Cretin.

Andy, please stop the abuse

Thanks

Its difficult to post an internet link to a hard copy paper read on a shop.

Angry Andy wrote:Its difficult to post an internet link to a hard copy paper read on a shop.

That is fair enough, but I doubt any of the British populace would accept a dictatorship here Andy.

Angry Andy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Says the person who can't post a link and can't even name the paper.

Try WH Smith. Thats where I read it. Cretin.

You start a "news" thread and there's no news in it - no link, and no name of the paper you're talking about. Grow up and post properly instead of being childish all the time.

Hmm. Not so sure about thatThor. A few ultra right wingers would adore that. 
Dictator state is a scary thought, but the reality is for amy party  far left or far right , they would have no problem. 

Raggamuffin wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:
Try WH Smith. Thats where I read it. Cretin.

You start a "news" thread and there's no news in it - no link, and no name of the paper you're talking about. Grow up and post properly instead of being childish all the time.

Fuck off out of mine and Thors conversation. If you have notjing worthy to say, just shut up.

Angry Andy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You start a "news" thread and there's no news in it - no link, and no name of the paper you're talking about. Grow up and post properly instead of being childish all the time.

Fuck off out of mine and Thors conversation. If you have notjing worthy to say, just shut up.

No, I won't. Post the name of the paper and a link to show what you're banging on about.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:
Fuck off out of mine and Thors conversation. If you have notjing worthy to say, just shut up.

No, I won't. Post the name of the paper and a link to show what you're banging on about.

He does not have a link, so what, so stop stirring rags

Angry Andy wrote:Hmm. Not so sure about thatThor. A few ultra right wingers would adore that. 
Dictator state is a scary thought, but the reality is for amy party  far left or far right , they would have no problem. 

As I said before Andy, this country and its people has an aversion to extremism, whether it be left or right.
Its why the BNP, he NF and UKIP have been failed parties.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No, I won't. Post the name of the paper and a link to show what you're banging on about.

He does not have a link, so what, so stop stirring rags

He's posted a fake "news" story, so he's the one who's stirring.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


He does not have a link, so what, so stop stirring rags

He's posted a fake "news" story, so he's the one who's stirring.

Well there seems to be a debate going on and i have no doubt the "sun" newspaper made a claim there is now only one party and that Andy interpreted to mean a certain way. 

So its only you going off this and not the points here

Do you have any points or are you going to continue to derail the thread?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He's posted a fake "news" story, so he's the one who's stirring.

Well there seems to be a debate going on and i have no doubt the "sun" newspaper made a claim there is now only one party and that Andy interpreted to mean a certain way. 

So its only you going off this and not the points here

Do you have any points or are you going to continue to derail to thread?

Well why didn't he say he meant The Sun, and why can't he elaborate on what he means? He could post some links to articles from The Sun to back up what he's saying. He derailed the thread by talking gibberish in his first post.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Well there seems to be a debate going on and i have no doubt the "sun" newspaper made a claim there is now only one party and that Andy interpreted to mean a certain way. 

So its only you going off this and not the points here

Do you have any points or are you going to continue to derail to thread?

Well why didn't he say he meant The Sun, and why can't he elaborate on what he means? He could post some links to articles from The Sun to back up what he's saying. He derailed the thread by talking gibberish in his first post.

So its clear you have no interest in the debate but want to bitch about Andy, after I told him not to be rude to you

Its simple here, either join the debate or stop looking to stir

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well why didn't he say he meant The Sun, and why can't he elaborate on what he means? He could post some links to articles from The Sun to back up what he's saying. He derailed the thread by talking gibberish in his first post.

So its clear you have no interest in the debate but want to bitch about Andy, after I told him not to be rude to you

Its simple here, either join the debate or stop looking to stir

I didn't ask you to interfere.

If there's an article backing up what he's saying, he can link to it, otherwise it's just fake news.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So its clear you have no interest in the debate but want to bitch about Andy, after I told him not to be rude to you

Its simple here, either join the debate or stop looking to stir

I didn't ask you to interfere.

If there's an article backing up what he's saying, he can link to it, otherwise it's just fake news.

So you think its fake news

Thanks for that, now allow others to debate

nicko wrote:Bullshit !!

I think you're right nicko.

It is not possible to post links to the Scum online website.
They have software to prevent it being copied.
Read todays Scum.
Online. Its in "The Scum Says".
If you are too fucking dense to know what paper to which I am referring, then perhaps you should read a bit more.

Why don't you say "the Sun"? and IF YOU DON'T READ IT how do you know what it says? Leaving all that aside ,the Sun sells more daily papers than any other. I suppose you read the Mirror and the Daily Worker.

Angry Andy wrote:It is not possible to post links to the Scum online website.
They have software to prevent it being copied.
Read todays Scum.
Online. Its in "The Scum Says".
If you are too fucking dense to know what paper to which I am referring, then perhaps you should read a bit more.

If you're too dense to be able to post the name of a newspaper which has a title consisting of three letters after the word "The", you're the one who should go back to school. Perhaps you read The Sun regularly, but I don't. Why do you read it if you don't like it?

Of course it's possible to post links the Sun online. Stop being a tosser.

So another debate that has been turned into a slagging match

For goodness sake

Is it this article?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3360405/this-general-election-should-deliver-a-thumping-tory-victory-and-give-theresa-may-the-authority-she-needs/

Raggamuffin wrote:Is it this article?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3360405/this-general-election-should-deliver-a-thumping-tory-victory-and-give-theresa-may-the-authority-she-needs/

That was April??????

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Is it this article?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3360405/this-general-election-should-deliver-a-thumping-tory-victory-and-give-theresa-may-the-authority-she-needs/

That was April??????

Oh - sorry.

I am trying to find the article which Andy is referring to.

This one?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3494386/theresa-may-turns-britain-blue-as-tories-crush-labour-in-biggest-local-election-rout-on-record/

Raggamuffin wrote:This one?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3494386/theresa-may-turns-britain-blue-as-tories-crush-labour-in-biggest-local-election-rout-on-record/

Possible candidate but i suspect the mail

No it is in the column The Scum says from today's rag .
Written by the editor , saying what Murdock the tax crook told him to write.
I never buy it. I only cast my eye over its editorial column to find out what Murdoch's plans are for the Conservative party and the UK

Angry Andy wrote:No it is in the column The Scum says from today's rag .
Written by the editor , saying what Murdock the tax crook told him to write.
I never buy it. I only cast my eye over its editorial column to find out what Murdoch's plans are for the Conservative party and the UK

Try to find it online and then post the link.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:No it is in the column The Scum says from today's rag .
Written by the editor , saying what Murdock the tax crook told him to write.
I never buy it. I only cast my eye over its editorial column to find out what Murdoch's plans are for the Conservative party and the UK

Try to find it online and then post the link.

He does not have to.

The point I am making is. If there is no evidence, then it is unsubstantiated.

You can still debate the claims

Blimey, we do this daily with Tommy's imaginative claims

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Try to find it online and then post the link.

He does not have to.

Well then there's nothing to back up what he's saying - he could have made it up.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


He does not have to.

Well then there's nothing to back up what he's saying - he could have made it up.

Read my last post rags

I actually think Andy's right in that we need a new party. Everyone I've spoken to doesn't know who to vote for - it's the same tired old stuff. We need something new, something people can really relate to. Of course, if most people can relate to the Tories, it won't make a difference anyway.

Open question for Raggs. 
Do you want a one party Conservative lead state with no formal oppostion party?
Hypothetically, 560 Conservative MP's. A few independentsand a disbanded House of Lords.
Dystopian?
Possibly.
Beyond imagination? Certainly not.

If you don't, then you will want a well organised, discipli ed Labour party to hold the government to account.

Which means you vehemently disagree with Murdoch and his editor.