Organgrinder

Can we take it that the EU inform you personally of any countries chances of joining? Did they notify you of this by letter? You have no more knowledge than anyone else who would be admitted and there are many major problems to sort out before Europe could even vote on this. Europe's track record speed-wise for getting things done are are also discouraging as witness the vaccine rollout. Everyone who is peeved at the UK leaving Europe, wants to have Scotland leave the UK as a punishment but that doesn't mean it will be in Scotland's best interests.

They may be less likely to be very ill with it but they can, and do, still spread it to adults who will be ill. That's a really big problem for the Government and I don't envy them but, they must stop saying that schools must be open "no matter what" It should depend only on circumstances at any given time. Virus's don't work according to childrens educational needs.

We haven't seen a copper on our streets for donkey's years and I don't expect that to change even when they set a few more on.

I definitely know that that it was the council who discouraged me from going to town with the never ending bus gates, road closures, pedestrianisations etc. I have better things to do than drive around in circles to get somewhere I can see 200 yards away with a traffic light stop every few yards. Not helped at all by the fact that they throw large sums of money on small areas whilst the majority of the city looks like Beirut, complete with empty shops and grafiti etc. I used to be in the city centre every day and enjoyed every minute of it but videos and photos prove how much it has changed. If you disagree with my reason for this, then maybe you could give us your view on why the city centre HAS DIED, (not dying).

You only have to look at photos from the 40's to the 70's to see that the city centre has been dying for years even before online shopping became popular. It used to be such a busy, vibrant place but the council discouraged motorists from coming and are still doing the same. When most people have electric cars, there will still be no hope because they are pedestrianising every road so there is nowhere for cars to go except around in circles. I stopped going to town probably 8 or 10 years ago and no, I don't buy online and I don't go to Meadowhell, but town is too much hassle with too many roads blocked. Only the people who work there, keep the place going and there are less and less of them as the councils policies bite.

This subject was being discussed on the Labour thread before I joined in. This would be because Labour were intending to vote against this bill because of the section we have been discussing. I added my thoughts to it because I thought that Labour were quite correct and this should not be made into law. Most people agree that if this were taken out, the bill should be passed.

Was the peaceful vigil causing significant disruption to the public. The other problems can be tackled by laws we already have. We seem to have manged for thousands of years. Better to be paranoid than fooled by power hungry governments. Will their be no failings of policing when they have their new powers which allow them to be even more brutal against us? Don't worry about the media. I have enough savvy to know what I'm talking about without their prattle or that from forums from people who don't know when they are being conned.

That is an example of one of the reasons they will quote when they want to stop something which is bringing them bad publicity. I repeat, If a gathering is peaceful then it should be illegal to use force to stop it. Carry on like this and we end up like, China, North Korea, Myanmarr. Our Government already has more powers than it has had throughout history and has more than enough to deal legally with protests. It should need none at all to deal with a vigil, as was proved everywhere in the country except London. Let them get tough with the drug dealers, knife gangs and illegal firearms carriers instead of frightened and helpless women.

If it hardly affects anyone's rights then it obviously isn't needed so why do they want to pass the bill. If it is passed, then it WILL affect peoples rights as soon as it is used. You may believe our governments lies but there are many of us who don't. If people are peaceful then no force should be allowed to be used Labour should continue to oppose the bill until that clause is removed.

I fully agree. It should also be pointed out that the gathering was NOT a protest but a vigil, to show respect for the poor victim. It was a peaceful vigil until the Mets came along with their heavy handed tactics. They don't need any more powers as they have plenty already, as they showed when they can disrupt a peaceful vigil. They will not be happy until they are running this country like the Gestapo did in Germany.

I am not anti-labour, I am anti Starmer. You obviously don't read my posts properly or you would know that. I would like to see a Labour Government but not a right leaning Blairite Government and that would be the result if Starmer led it. I would have voted for the Corbyn led Labour party but they decided that they didn't want to honour the Brexit vote. I have already said that I voted Labour for around 60 Years but I will not support a Labour party with Tory policies and I will not support a Labour party that breaks it's word. If voters like me cause another Conservative Government, it will be because Labour have lost their core values and thereby, lost us voters too.

My impatience doesn't make any difference. He is the first leader in many years who will not express anything about his own preferences. Did he go into politics without any aims at all and just rely on a group of people making up some policies for him when it approaches election time. I've already stated that I knew what Corbyn wanted to do from the moment he took leadership. His aims are not clear at all except to the people who believe everything the Daily mirror says, which is pure guesswork anyway. The biggest laugh of the week that Starmer has been challenging Johnson at the despatch box. He has, for the most part come off worst. You admit yourself that he dare not go in too hard and that's because he can't think of an alternative. I agree there is a vaccine bounce in play but Johnson has earned that - it didn't come about on it's own although it is probably the only thing he has got right. Your confidence that the electorates opinions will change when we are all vaccinated tickles me but if makes Starmers supporters feel better then fine, until you get an unexpected Kinnock result AGAIN. Starmer wanted to stay inside the European Vaccine club so he would have had a bounce downward , had he been in charge. We sure will see but I expect to be dissapointed because I want to see a Labour Government again but hopes are pinned to the wrong guy and you can't govern sitting on a fence.

I don't understand what this means. Who are we referring to and what are they trying to do and how am I preventing this? By all means defend Starmer against views such as mine but if he doesn't have a single aim except give the nurses a pay rise then he won't change minds like mine and won't last long. Who would think that all he's up against is a government who have made one mistake after another and given us the biggest death toll in Europe and turned against the very people they were clapping. If he can't cut it now, he never will. I'll be very surprised if he is still leader at the next election.

With no policies, they will get no votes. I Labour still believes in more privatisation for instance, then this policy is already decided and should be spelled out. You are all hedging here because none of you know what Labour policies are and you know I am right when I say this. You obviously trust Labour to do the right things whilst I and many others don't. That's why Labour are still behind in the polls and it is accepted that if there was an election now, Labour would lose. I am concerned about many many things on this planet along with Labours performance but as I am not superman, I have neither the time, the energy or the inclination to do things which other people are getting highly paid to do. Let them do the job which they are being paid for or make way for someone else to do it properly. There are many situations where I would do things differently from ALL our politicians but, as I am asking no one to support or vote for me, I do not need to spell them out for you. Just remember that Starmer doesn't just have to persuade me if he wants to win the next election but the very many who also think like I do and didn't support them in the last election.

No, I don't agree at all. When Corbyn was the leader, he made clear to everyone what his policies were if he became Prime Minister - for instance - We knew he was going to take into public ownership Railways, Gas, Electricity, Water etc, Build x number of affordable homes Abolish Universal credit and replace it with a fair system Provide free high speed internet and so on Starmer never talks about what he wants to do or will do except from giving nurses a pay rise (which I applaud) He berates Boris everyday, as his job entails but, apart from saying that the Tories are getting it wrong, he never says what he would do instead. We STILL need to know what Starmer would do. Your next post has just arrived and I will answer it now - We are discussing the LABOUR party and not past mistakes Johnson has made. I acknowledge that Johnson has made many mistakes but, as I am not a Tory fan or a Tory voter, I am not responsible for that and, at this moment, I am not discussing that. I have already acknowledged Starmer's part in trying to get the nurses their pay rise and I applaud that but, this is the only positive thing he has done up until now and this is the only subject where I know what his views are and what his future intentions are if he were to become Prime Minister. I do not need telling what is in the media because I am already fully aware of this, which is why I am complaining about Starmer's refusal to pin his colours to the mast.