UK - A one party state

First topic message reminder :

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 ?

Raggamuffin wrote: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.

That is a fair point. I no longer hold any party as viable, including the Tories, but they the lesser of two evils when it comes to Labour under that extremist terrorist supporting Corbyn.

Raggamuffin wrote: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.

We are getting there Raggs. A slightly left of centre party, comprising moderate labour, Libs, UKIP and soft conservatives who are concerned with the tory lurch to the right.
Even the Greens could be part of the new party.
In truth, Tony Blair wasn't too far wrong in his first stint, he got distracted by a war and his love in with the USA, but in general his policies were acceptable to a wide range of the British people.

Angry Andy wrote: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.

I don't particularly want a Tory Government at all - I've never voted Tory, although I agree with some of their policies.

The House of Lords? Well they annoy me - a bunch of people claiming a load of expenses for doing very little IMO. That needs to go - I'm not sure what should replace it though.

I'm not sure that Labour is the answer though. I think that Corbyn is too far to the left, and he's never really explained his alleged support for the IRA and other terrorists. The Lib Dems never really recovered from going in with the Tories.

Angry Andy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote: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.

We are getting there Raggs. A slightly left of centre party, comprising moderate labour, Libs, UKIP and soft conservatives who are concerned with the tory lurch to the right.
Even the Greens could be part of the new party.
In truth, Tony Blair wasn't too far wrong in his first stint, he got distracted by a war and his love in with the USA, but in general his policies were acceptable to a wide range of the British people.

Absolutely! I voted for Labour back then - until the Iraq invasion anyway.

The Greens are perceived to be a party which is not really credible, don't you think? It's the sort of party people vote for when they don't want to vote for anyone else.

I actually think we have more in common polically than seems possible. 
It seems we are both centre ground.

Angry Andy wrote:I actually think we have more in common polically than seems possible. 
It seems we are both centre ground.

Maybe. I'm generally labelled on here as right wing, or even "far right", but I'm pretty much in the centre - maybe very slightly to the right.

Raggamuffin wrote: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.

I read an article last week saying tony blair is set to launch a new 'centre left' party...!!!

The Greens have some sound policies, but adopting them would to hugely expensive -which means big tax rises. A new party that builds a manifesto from scratch, Tory frugality, Green ecology, Labour social consciousness, Lib Dem organisation and even UKIP negotiation skills, would encompass all the best parts of all the parties and would appeal to a vast majority. Call it the Unification Party. 
There ard sufficient numbers on MP's disillusioned with the way the country is heading.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote: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.

I read an article last week saying tony blair is set to launch a new 'centre left' party...!!!

Wont happen Tommy. He wont get enough backing. The idea is sound, as I have expanded in this thread. But Blair is yesterday's man and too few trust him.
There are some good youngsters out there, and a few old grandees from all parties to add their wealth of experience.

Angry Andy wrote:The Greens have some sound policies, but adopting them would to hugely expensive -which means big tax rises. A new party that builds a manifesto from scratch, Tory frugality, Green ecology, Labour social consciousness, Lib Dem organisation and even UKIP negotiation skills, would encompass all the best parts of all the parties and would appeal to a vast majority. Call it the Unification Party. 
There ard sufficient numbers on MP's disillusioned with the way the country is heading.

The Greens need to change their name - it makes them sound like a bunch of tree huggers.

I don't think the Brits will go for anyone who puts up taxes, so that's out. If all those aspects could be combined, it would work, but I can't see it really - they would all fall out with each other.

Something in British politics  needs to change - especially after the GE and in the years leading up to Brexit. I think there will be moves to a new party , or at least a split in Labour within 6 months.

Angry Andy wrote: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 ?

odd how you were not so indignant when labour was the 1 party state in 97.
But no surprise there

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.

but you and your friends for months have been saying corbyn is the future and the only hope for the country and labour will soar to power.
are you saying corbyn is a liability now and labour are finished for good?

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Just like the nazis...

Wrong, the Nazi's hated many racial groups

The Far left just hate Jews

not quite true, they hate the wealth creators as well.

Angry Andy wrote: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.

yes and most of those have absolutely no confidence in the leader so why should anyone vote for a party like that

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.

it would be yours and his conversation if you were having it by private message, as long as it is on the open forum it is open to any comment from anyone.

You can always rely on the Turkish twat to derail the thread. Unfound lies about me supporting Corbyn, and how we had a 1 party state in 1997. In fact Sassy and I disagree on our support for Corbyn.
 There were still HUNDREDS of tory MP's. But moron brain forgot that.

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

wouldn't anything he read in the sun also be on their website?

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.

that just appears to be a lie
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3496117/swimmer-has-chunk-bitten-out-of-his-leg-after-he-tries-to-lasso-a-shark-like-a-cowboy/

[quote="Thorin"]

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??????[/quote maybe he meant this one
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3495220/poll-results-show-theresa-may-is-ready-to-take-over-with-largest-majority-vote-for-over-30-years/

which is apparently impossible to copy from the sun website.

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

is that the murdock who supported labour until 2010?

Thorin wrote: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

he made up some rubbish and we are supposed to debate that?
crabs have taken over the world. discuss

Angry Andy wrote:The Greens have some sound policies, but adopting them would to hugely expensive -which means big tax rises. A new party that builds a manifesto from scratch, Tory frugality, Green ecology, Labour social consciousness, Lib Dem organisation and even UKIP negotiation skills, would encompass all the best parts of all the parties and would appeal to a vast majority. Call it the Unification Party. 
There ard sufficient numbers on MP's disillusioned with the way the country is heading.

the watermelons are possibly even worse than labour

Angry Andy wrote:Something in British politics  needs to change - especially after the GE and in the years leading up to Brexit. I think there will be moves to a new party , or at least a split in Labour within 6 months.

that is exactly what I said in 2010, labour would lurch to the left and then split.

As I said. Typical of fuckbrain to parachute in on a good discussion to derail it with 9 out 10 of the last postings. Is what he does. 
Hates newsfix because it competes with flop.
Spoils threads and floods it with crap.
Where are the mods when you want one?

Angry Andy wrote:You can always rely on the Turkish twat to derail the thread. Unfound lies about me supporting Corbyn, and how we had a 1 party state in 1997. In fact Sassy and I disagree on our support for Corbyn.
 There were still HUNDREDS of tory MP's. But moron brain forgot that.

I have not been abusive, unlike you,but Ia m glad you fully accept labour are an absolute liability for the country.
there were 330 tory mp and around 240 labour mp's, after the election there will be around 400tory and 150-170 labour at best.
Labour only have themselves to blame for that being the case. The idiot special ed opened the party up to infiltration by the far left and the unions and they took full advantage of it and now are completely in charge. Labour turned on the only man who could make them electable, it is 41 years since labour were elected with a pm other than tony blair. for all his faults, and they were legion, blair made the party electable. Of course he is less welcome than a fart in a spacesuit these days.
But perhaps if labour supporters had not spent the last years telling everyone who did not fawn at corbyns feet to fuck up and vote tory, they might not have.

Angry Andy wrote:As I said. Typical of fuckbrain to parachute in on a good discussion to derail it with 9 out 10 of the last postings. Is what he does. 
Hates newsfix because it competes with flop.
Spoils threads and floods it with crap.
Where are the mods when you want one?

explain where I have derailed anything, I pointed out you lied when you said you cant copy the sun articles from the website, I offered reasons why labour are a lost cause, I refrained from abusing you or anyone else, the only derailing is by you who like labour at the moment wish to silence any who offer dissent.

you stayed a thread without any information or links based on your own prejudices and have quite rightly been taken to task over it.

The only thing in your favour is that at least we have established that you think labour are a waste of space as well.

Angry Andy wrote:As I said. Typical of fuckbrain to parachute in on a good discussion to derail it with 9 out 10 of the last postings. Is what he does. 
Hates newsfix because it competes with flop.
Spoils threads and floods it with crap.
Where are the mods when you want one?

where have I ever said I hate newsfix, I think you are confusing me with your gang over on serens site, the one sassy stole. I have seen you lot badmouthing NF over there.
I think this site does not need all the mods, that is my only issue.

Angry Andy wrote:As I said. Typical of fuckbrain to parachute in on a good discussion to derail it with 9 out 10 of the last postings. Is what he does. 
Hates newsfix because it competes with flop.
Spoils threads and floods it with crap.
Where are the mods when you want one?

This word cracks me up, I have visions of a parachute descending into the thread haha.

Ok carry on ..........

magica wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:As I said. Typical of fuckbrain to parachute in on a good discussion to derail it with 9 out 10 of the last postings. Is what he does. 
Hates newsfix because it competes with flop.
Spoils threads and floods it with crap.
Where are the mods when you want one?

This word cracks me up, I have visions of a parachute descending into the thread haha.

Ok carry on ..........

I tend to find most people laugh at andwew not with him
(was that a little bitchy?)

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Wrong, the Nazi's hated many racial groups

The Far left just hate Jews

not quite true, they hate the wealth creators as well.

Wrong

Angry Andy wrote:Something in British politics  needs to change - especially after the GE and in the years leading up to Brexit. I think there will be moves to a new party , or at least a split in Labour within 6 months.

The change has already been happening... politicians have started to remember that they are supposed to do what the people want... not the other way round...!!!

Thorin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
not quite true, they hate the wealth creators as well.

Wrong

if they want to tax them out of existence they hate them. the 1% pay 25% of income tax. they arre the most easily mobile section of society and if as labour wishes they tax until the pips squeak many will bugger off just like they did in france.
and when they bugger off that leaves a huge tax hole to be filled by the rest of us.

the top 0.1 % or put another way around the top 3000 tax payers pay as much as the bottom 9million. how much higher would it need to go to make any or all of those 3000 leave the uk.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:
You can always rely on the Turkish twat to derail the thread. Unfound lies about me supporting Corbyn, and how we had a 1 party state in 1997. In fact Sassy and I disagree on our support for Corbyn.
 There were still HUNDREDS of tory MP's. But moron brain forgot that.

I have always been abusive, unlike you, but I am glad you fully accept labour are an absolute liability for the country.
there were 330 tory mp and around 240 labour mp's, after the election there will be around 400tory and 150-170 labour at best.

Labour only have themselves to blame for that being the case. The idiot special ed opened the party up to infiltration by the far left and the unions and they took full advantage of it and now are completely in charge. Labour turned on the only man who could make them electable, it is 41 years since labour were elected with a pm other than tony blair. for all his faults, and they were legion, blair made the party electable. Of course he is less welcome than a fart in a spacesuit these days.
But perhaps if labour supporters had not spent the last years telling everyone who did not fawn at corbyns feet to fuck up and vote tory, they might not have.

You are a fucking idiot and a liar, without the faintest clue about that which you so feebly attempt to pontificate upon,  DYKbrain...

The trade unions have been at the core of the various Labour/Labor parties ever since they were created in the late 19th century, in Oz, Britain and North America..

As such, they never infiltrated the Labour movements --  on the contrary, they were instrumental in facilitating the birth of the early Labour parties..

It was the various extreme_left neo-Marxist, Maoist and Stalinist "socialist worker" and "socialist democrat" groups that began invading the various left-wing/ more 'moderate' parties back in the 1980s and '90s.

The obvious reason that you would appreciate Blair's reign over the British Labour Party back when, is likely that he was always a centre-right_leaning/'Thatcherist' goon and lawyer, and never a left wing/ social minded Labourite.. The Aussie Labor Party changed the spelling of our party decades ago, to distance itself their British cousins, as they drifted over to the right..

Your revisionist alt.right propaganda is pure bulldust, DYKface --  your brand of voodoo pseudo-economics would Britain into the same kind of desolate wasteland that you enjoy in your Flap cesspool...        

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:As I said. Typical of fuckbrain to parachute in on a good discussion to derail it with 9 out 10 of the last postings. Is what he does. 
Hates newsfix because it competes with flop.
Spoils threads and floods it with crap.
Where are the mods when you want one?

where have I ever said I hate newsfix, I think you are confusing me with your gang over on serens site, the one sassy stole. I have seen you lot badmouthing NF over there.
I think this site does not need all the mods, that is my only issue.

I sort of agree we could cut it back to just ben and Myself being the 2 longest serving mods
the Mods that were Modding in away that attracted everyone here in the first place.

Angry Andy wrote:You can always rely on the Turkish twat to derail the thread. Unfound lies about me supporting Corbyn, and how we had a 1 party state in 1997. In fact Sassy and I disagree on our support for Corbyn.
 There were still HUNDREDS of tory MP's. But moron brain forgot that.

there was 165 tory mp's in 1997
there were 418 labour and 46 ld

more or less what the result is likely to be except reversed in june. the tories wont win 560 or any where near that,around the 400 mark would be a good win, so my point about the labour 1 party state would be quite right using your logic.

Angry Andy wrote:As I said. Typical of fuckbrain to parachute in on a good discussion to derail it with 9 out 10 of the last postings. Is what he does. 
Hates newsfix because it competes with flop.
Spoils threads and floods it with crap.
Where are the mods when you want one?

you seem to think reasonable replies to posts is somehow spamming or derailing, in fact it is your constant abuse that derails threads and your never ending demands that those you dont agree with be silenced.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:

I have always been abusive, unlike you, but I am glad you fully accept labour are an absolute liability for the country.
there were 330 tory mp and around 240 labour mp's, after the election there will be around 400tory and 150-170 labour at best.

Labour only have themselves to blame for that being the case. The idiot special ed opened the party up to infiltration by the far left and the unions and they took full advantage of it and now are completely in charge. Labour turned on the only man who could make them electable, it is 41 years since labour were elected with a pm other than tony blair. for all his faults, and they were legion, blair made the party electable. Of course he is less welcome than a fart in a spacesuit these days.
But perhaps if labour supporters had not spent the last years telling everyone who did not fawn at corbyns feet to fuck up and vote tory, they might not have.

You are a fucking idiot and a liar, without the faintest clue about that which you so feebly attempt to pontificate upon,  DYKbrain...

The trade unions have been at the core of the various Labour/Labor parties ever since they were created in the late 19th century, in Oz, Britain and North America..

As such, they never infiltrated the Labour movements --  on the contrary, they were instrumental in facilitating the birth of the early Labour parties..

It was the various extreme_left neo-Marxist, Maoist and Stalinist "socialist worker" and "socialist democrat" groups that began invading the various left-wing/ more 'moderate' parties back in the 1980s and '90s.

The obvious reason that you would appreciate Blair's reign over the British Labour Party back when, is likely that he was always a centre-right_leaning/'Thatcherist' goon and lawyer, and never a left wing/ social minded Labourite..   The Aussie Labor Party changed the spelling of our party decades ago, to distance itself their British cousins, as they drifted over to the right..

Your revisionist alt.right propaganda is pure bulldust, DYKface --  your brand of voodoo pseudo-economics would Britain into the same kind of desolate wasteland that you enjoy in your Flap cesspool...        

yes we all know the current labour party is bought and paid for by the unions, they even want to impose their own candidates in some seats so corbyn has more support in the party.
around 65% of the last lot of labour mp's were sponsored by unite and the unions.

now if I was in charge of electoral law I would ban business, unions and rich donors from giving money to party's and ensure all their money came only from the membership. only members could donate and that would have to be a strict limit of no more than £5000 per parliamentary term.
there is only one reason for union, business and rich donors to give huge sums of money to political parties and that is for some form of influence or quid pro quo.



It seems that only you could make andwew look clever.

now perhaps instead of abuse you could occasionally try and refute what is said with perhaps a fact or two.

I don't take any notice of wolfie's posts now, some time ago I realised that he was brain dead and was only useful for making me smile with his childish insults. I think he should put his arse in one of his Beehives, it might sting some sense into his Brain !!

nicko wrote:I don't take any notice of wolfie's posts now, some time ago I realised that he was brain dead and was only useful for making me smile with his childish insults.  I think he should put his arse in one of his Beehives, it might sting some sense into his Brain  !!

best not reply on any subject I have commented on as we will get accused of ganging up

+1