blandy Posted May 19, 2021 Moderator Share Posted May 19, 2021 24 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Labour's sudden and insincere love of border controls is an absolute embarrassment. People want to go abroad Jon, to see families, to study, to work and yes to go on holiday. Telling everyone they need to spend two weeks in a hotel, even if it's completely pointless, is just going to be very unpopular. It's absolutely typical of the party currently that they are embracing this hard-right reactionary politics at exactly the moment it becomes unpopular. They're not just craven right-wing cowards, but inept ones too. Inept is underplaying it - a lot of their people are utter numpties. I don't see them as "right wing", but incoherent. I mean border controls during a pandemic should have a part to play. Our Tory government has been abysmal in this regard, all the way through - with India being the most recent example. When the big surge happened in India, the government did nothing. 20,000 people came into the UK from India with next to no testing, tracking, isolating or anything else. They should have closed the border and those essential incomers been put in 2 week hotel isolation immediately. The difficulty now with the Government's travel and border policy is that there's this Red list "you cannot go there" countries, then an amber list "please don't go there" and a green list "you can go there" . But the amber list - it's just optional - there's no legal power to it. None. Either it's OK, or it's not OK. if it's OK, then don't say "don't go there" and if it's not OK, then don't allow people to go there, if your policy is to stop travel to those places. Personally I wouldn't be stopping people going anywhere - that's (IMO) for the destination nations to decide. BUT I would stop people coming IN from some places, or at least do it like NZ and Aus etc - 2 week mandatory, quarantined isolation. And the reason for this is because of "herd immunity" and the percentage of the population which needs to be protected (immune) for that to work. The more infectious a variant, the greater the percentage of immunised people there needs to be for herd immunity to work. So it's a race, really between getting people vaccinated and preventing variants spreading. To prevent the spread of new variants, you have to stop them being imported. A variant that is more infectious, or is more harmful to the young, or more resistant to vaccines is the last thing we need. I mean all that's personal view, but Labour has for the last 6 months failed to lay out anything and justify it, whatever it might be. Do they even think about this stuff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swerbs Posted May 19, 2021 Share Posted May 19, 2021 Who knew posting potentially libellous stuff about the most high-profile lawyer in the country would backfire.. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted May 20, 2021 Share Posted May 20, 2021 It seems that Shippers was finally bound Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted May 20, 2021 Share Posted May 20, 2021 On 19/05/2021 at 10:27, ender4 said: Flag-shagging? Flag shagging… 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 20, 2021 Moderator Share Posted May 20, 2021 1 hour ago, chrisp65 said: Flag shagging… Shapps being pictured next to a steam Locomotive in the livery of the former pre-nationalisation London, Midland and Scottish Railway (LMS), I'm sure that minor detail eluded him whilst he made sure there were enough Union Flags flying 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted May 20, 2021 Author Share Posted May 20, 2021 On 19/05/2021 at 10:06, HanoiVillan said: Labour's sudden and insincere love of border controls is an absolute embarrassment. People want to go abroad Jon, to see families, to study, to work and yes to go on holiday. Telling everyone they need to spend two weeks in a hotel, even if it's completely pointless, is just going to be very unpoular. It's absolutely typical of the party currently that they are embracing this hard-right reactionary politics at exactly the moment it becomes unpopular. They're not just craven right-wing cowards, but inept ones too. Cant agree more. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted May 22, 2021 Share Posted May 22, 2021 (edited) any other leader would be less* than 20** points behind Spoiler *fewer Spoiler **18 Edited May 22, 2021 by HanoiVillan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted May 22, 2021 Share Posted May 22, 2021 Wonder how long it takes before the knives are out for Starmer. Perhaps they need to lose Batley first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted May 22, 2021 Share Posted May 22, 2021 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted May 23, 2021 Share Posted May 23, 2021 Keir Starmer - personally intervening to close a park 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted May 23, 2021 Share Posted May 23, 2021 What the hell is wrong with him? Does he want out of politics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 23, 2021 Moderator Share Posted May 23, 2021 40 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Keir Starmer - personally intervening to close a park Not quite though is it. Closing a park on weekend nights. Its the only Royal Park in London that isn't closed at night Most public parks close at night, the council come round and lock the gates, then reopen them early morning. I'm not really sure what the fuss is about, closing a park at night seems like a perfectly normal thing to me. We used to get chased out of the park by the park keeper when it was closing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted May 23, 2021 Share Posted May 23, 2021 37 minutes ago, bickster said: Not quite though is it. Closing a park on weekend nights. Its the only Royal Park in London that isn't closed at night Most public parks close at night, the council come round and lock the gates, then reopen them early morning. I'm not really sure what the fuss is about, closing a park at night seems like a perfectly normal thing to me. We used to get chased out of the park by the park keeper when it was closing. The park is normally open; he wants to close it. He's personally intervening to do so. Okay, not 24/7, but he wants the park to be closed at a time when it is normally open. Closing parks at night seems in general like a bad thing to do anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted May 23, 2021 Share Posted May 23, 2021 I'm not sure "personally intervening" is really giving it the right context. He can't "intervene", he has no power, and it's phrased in a way that he's involving himself in something he shouldn't, when he's the MP for the affected area.. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of it though, the Labour MP going out of their way to back the local considervative council is an interesting move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted May 23, 2021 Share Posted May 23, 2021 6 minutes ago, Davkaus said: I'm not sure "personally intervening" is really giving it the right context. He can't "intervene", he has no power, and it's phrased in a way that he's involving himself in something he shouldn't, when he's the MP for the affected area.. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of it though, the Labour MP going out of their way to back the local considervative council is an interesting move. What is a more appropriate word than 'intervention' for this: 'Starmer’s office wrote to the campaign explaining that the office had received “firsthand accounts of very loud noise disturbance, fights and attacks on residents”. It confirmed that “Keir met virtually with parks’ management last week and urged them to do more to ensure the disturbance ended”.' It seems like a completely fair choice of word to me. He didn't have to get involved, he has no statutory need to be involved, yet get involved he did. When someone gets involved in something they don't have to get involved in, 'intervening' seems like a reasonable description. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 23, 2021 Moderator Share Posted May 23, 2021 11 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Closing parks at night seems in general like a bad thing to do anyway Opening parks at night seems like a completely stupid thing to do. They've always been a magnet for anti-social behaviour at night which is why they've always been closed at night as long as I've been alive, Birmingham, Wales, Liverpool... parks close at night wherever it's possible. Parks have fences / walls and gates for a reason and most of those gates and fences are as old as the parks themselves. This just seems like one of those issues that are only an issue because of the person involved on the one side I can only think of one park that doesn't close at night in my lived experience and that's Sefton Park in Liverpool and thats because it isn't technically owned by the council and has no wall or fences and it has a covenant preventing them from when it was donated, plus there are businesses inside its boundaries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 23, 2021 Moderator Share Posted May 23, 2021 30 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: What is a more appropriate word than 'intervention' for this: 'Starmer’s office wrote to the campaign explaining that the office had received “firsthand accounts of very loud noise disturbance, fights and attacks on residents”. It confirmed that “Keir met virtually with parks’ management last week and urged them to do more to ensure the disturbance ended”.' It seems like a completely fair choice of word to me. He didn't have to get involved, he has no statutory need to be involved, yet get involved he did. When someone gets involved in something they don't have to get involved in, 'intervening' seems like a reasonable description. So the MP for the area shouldn't have an opinion on something that happens in the constituency that elects him? That again is a rather strange idea. Can you imagine if he'd said nothing? If Brexit taught Labour anything, it's that you have to be on one side or the other surely? If he comes down on the side of keeping the park open, he's on the side of encouraging anti-social behaviour which for a barrister and the Leader of a Political Party, isn't exactly a good look (nor is it a good look for the sitting MP in the constituency). If he sits on the fence as you suggest, he's antagonised both sides in the debate. I don't see that he's got much option but to be on the side he's apparently picked. If he sits on the fence (as he's often been criticised for), he's pilloried, If he picks a side, he's now in the wrong too? And why does it appear it's the wrong side? because it's the Tory side, that appears to be the main reason he shouldn't have picked the side he picked. Thats just yet more tribal politics. The fact that this is a story at all apart from in the local press is far more revealing than anything about the story EDIT: It should also be noted that, despite the tone of the article, Primrose Hill is in Camden, a Labour run Council, so instead of wondering why Starmer is siding with the Tories, has anyone wondered why he's siding with his own party, what an absolute disgrace that is. Strange how the article never mentions this bit 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted May 23, 2021 Share Posted May 23, 2021 To answer both previous posts, my objection is not to do with him supporting Tories or otherwise, it is with him intervening to help close a park and prevent it from being accessible to the public. I think parks being open - including at night - is a Good Thing and I want to live in an area in which parks are open at night for people to use. I sometimes go for a walk after dark, once my dog has fallen asleep, and as part of that I walk through my local park. Sometimes I see other people in the park, chatting with friends or walking like I am. This also seems like a Good Thing. I am afraid I am not going to side with prigs, fun sponges or curtain twitchers who want to close public (or publicly-accessible-but-should-be-public) spaces. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 23, 2021 Moderator Share Posted May 23, 2021 40 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: To answer both previous posts, my objection is not to do with him supporting Tories or otherwise, Look at the other posts on the subject. One poster has even read the article and come to the conclusion from it that it is a Tory Council decison That article is a disgrace, everyone interviewed is from one side of the debate and the article is accusing Starmer of siding with the Tories when it is in fact a Labour run council Just for the sake of balance and to show that the Guardian article is one sided tosh, the people on the other side of the debate are easy to access so they have no excuse for not contacting them... Quote Mick Hudspeth, the CEO of Primrose Hill Community Association, said: “It is quite clear that the measures are not working, it is impossible to police the space all weekend, police resources are stretched as it is especially with lockdown ending and pubs re-opening. “As Primrose Hill has now become the party venue of choice, until gates are in place the ASB (antisocial behaviour) will continue as will the associated crime in the area that goes with it.” Primrose Hill resident Lucy Cottrell said an “enormous body” of at least 500 residents have been in contact with the authorities to prevent the neighbourhood “getting out of control forever”. A spokesperson for the Royal Parks, which manages Primrose Hill, said the “short-term solution” would continue, for now, to deal with “persistent anti-social behaviour and disruption”. HamHigh.co.uk It should also be noted that it is a decision between Royal Parks and Camden Council It should also be noted that the park closure is from 10pm ant night on Friday, Saturday and Sundays. It's not like it's closing at 7pm Also the timing coincides with pubs etc being open again. I still can't see what the fuss is about.Parks closing at night seems perfectly normal to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmygreaves Posted May 23, 2021 Share Posted May 23, 2021 At what point do people consider the possibility that Starmer is in the employ of the "right" (Tories, Murdoch, etc...) and the whole plan is to tear the Labour party to pieces..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts