Independent Leyton Orient Forum

I asked how the guidance for over 70's differered from the general guidance. It doesn't.

The guidance on being particularly stringent on something we were told everyone had to follow is complete nonsense. They clearly had thoughts of including over 70's in the shielding group but as they chose not to there was absolutely no difference in what the over 70's were asked to do.

I've had to read every word of every bit of guidance issued and been to endless meetings making sure the guidance is understood and being complied with, i think I'm better placed than most to say what the guidance is. Saying whatever the argument I make it's still wrong just shows your ignorance.

If you think Corbyn broke guidance by going to work so did every other MP.

The guidlines in Scotchlandshire now allow up to 8 people to meet. This means the Scotch Labour Party conference can now go ahead.

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 2:28 pm The guidlines in Scotchlandshire now allow up to 8 people to meet. This means the Scotch Labour Party conference can now go ahead.

What about the Scottish Tories?

Disoriented wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 4:14 pm

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 2:28 pm The guidlines in Scotchlandshire now allow up to 8 people to meet. This means the Scotch Labour Party conference can now go ahead.

What about the Scottish Tories?

Fukem

Admin wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 1:26 pm

Millennial Snowflake wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 11:42 am

Admin wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 10:48 am Q: Why do all these gammon right wingers (some of whom pass themselves off as "Centrists") keep banging on about Corbyn / Abbott? Anyone would think they were running the country.

Yep, anyone who isn’t a fan of Corbyn / Abbott or their politics is obviously a gammon right winger

Can’t beat logic like that

RedO's beaten me to it. I'm genuinely curious as he has no relevance to the current situation yet they're constantly being brought into the subject, mainly by gammons. It's almost like they have to rely on a straw-man argument to defend the current government.

Notice you didn't (or couldn't) answer the question though.

I’ve only talked about them in response to someone else saying they couldn’t have been any worse

Don’t think blaming the electorate for not being able to foresee a pandemic back in December is particularly reasonable

Believing Corbyn wouldn’t have handled the situation competently isn’t defending the government

Hope this helps

Nice Username wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 1:30 pm

E10EU wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 1:22 am Yet Labour lost in 2010 and 2015 when they tried to be more like the Tories. Remember the anti immigrant mugs?

In 2017 Labour with Corbyn's manifesto succeeded in wiping out the Tories majority - and that was DESPITE the media and many Labour MPs actively undermining the leader.

This always makes me laugh considering Labour's 2017 manifesto was easily the most right-wing of their manifestos on immigration in modern history. Literally called for the end of free movement before a Brexit deal had even been agreed. People also forget that the manifesto prioritised cutting tuition fees as well as explicitly stating they'd keep £6bn of the Tory benefit cuts.

Amazing what people will force themselves to believe to convince themselves they weren't supporting a dud.

Always makes me laugh too when Corbynites selectively point out Labour lost in 2010 and 2015 being more like the Tories (read: moderate) but conveniently forget we won comprehensively I’m 97, 01 and 05 on a similar platform.

Millennial Snowflake wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 12:31 pm

Nice Username wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 1:30 pm

E10EU wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 1:22 am Yet Labour lost in 2010 and 2015 when they tried to be more like the Tories. Remember the anti immigrant mugs?

In 2017 Labour with Corbyn's manifesto succeeded in wiping out the Tories majority - and that was DESPITE the media and many Labour MPs actively undermining the leader.

This always makes me laugh considering Labour's 2017 manifesto was easily the most right-wing of their manifestos on immigration in modern history. Literally called for the end of free movement before a Brexit deal had even been agreed. People also forget that the manifesto prioritised cutting tuition fees as well as explicitly stating they'd keep £6bn of the Tory benefit cuts.

Amazing what people will force themselves to believe to convince themselves they weren't supporting a dud.

Always makes me laugh too when Corbynites selectively point out Labour lost in 2010 and 2015 being more like the Tories (read: moderate) but conveniently forget we won comprehensively I’m 97, 01 and 05 on a similar platform.

The truth is Labour lost because of the leader. Personally I liked some of the manifesto stuff, even if not costed and realistic it did demonstrate direction. All I really expect from a manifesto.

But Corbyn was just no PM material. Obvious to me the day he became leader and thank goodness he is now history. I still struggle with the concept that some feel he could be PM. But he has gone, thankfully, and in Starmer we have a move in the right direction, in all senses of the term.

Corbyn politics was merely a protest group who were never going to get elected. Starmer on the other hand has a chance to win over the middle ground needed to get elected. And you need to get elected to make a difference, something the Corbynites never really got a grip with.

Pragmatism.

Last poll of Corbyn's leadership

Con: 52%
Lab 28%

Millennial Snowflake wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 12:27 pm

Admin wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 1:26 pm

Millennial Snowflake wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 11:42 am

Yep, anyone who isn’t a fan of Corbyn / Abbott or their politics is obviously a gammon right winger

Can’t beat logic like that

RedO's beaten me to it. I'm genuinely curious as he has no relevance to the current situation yet they're constantly being brought into the subject, mainly by gammons. It's almost like they have to rely on a straw-man argument to defend the current government.

Notice you didn't (or couldn't) answer the question though.

I’ve only talked about them in response to someone else saying they couldn’t have been any worse

Don’t think blaming the electorate for not being able to foresee a pandemic back in December is particularly reasonable

Believing Corbyn wouldn’t have handled the situation competently isn’t defending the government

Hope this helps

Not really. I didn’t even mention the electorate so not sure why you’re bringing them into it. Feel free to point out where I’ve suggested anything about Corbyn.

Besides from the odd leftie making a claim about him that can’t be supported, there’s a lot of right wingers here whose only response to criticism of the government is to bring Corbyn into the argument.

But you knew that anyway.

Millennial Snowflake wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 12:31 pm

Nice Username wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 1:30 pm

E10EU wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 1:22 am Yet Labour lost in 2010 and 2015 when they tried to be more like the Tories. Remember the anti immigrant mugs?

In 2017 Labour with Corbyn's manifesto succeeded in wiping out the Tories majority - and that was DESPITE the media and many Labour MPs actively undermining the leader.

This always makes me laugh considering Labour's 2017 manifesto was easily the most right-wing of their manifestos on immigration in modern history. Literally called for the end of free movement before a Brexit deal had even been agreed. People also forget that the manifesto prioritised cutting tuition fees as well as explicitly stating they'd keep £6bn of the Tory benefit cuts.

Amazing what people will force themselves to believe to convince themselves they weren't supporting a dud.

Always makes me laugh too when Corbynites selectively point out Labour lost in 2010 and 2015 being more like the Tories (read: moderate) but conveniently forget we won comprehensively I’m 97, 01 and 05 on a similar platform.

Corbyn has gone.

Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 9:26 pm Last poll of Corbyn's leadership

Con: 52%
Lab 28%

It’s almost as if all that negative reporting, on a daily basis, had an impact on people’s opinions.

It’s lucky that, for some reason, the right wing media don’t have an issue with Sir Kier.

RedO wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 7:33 am

Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 9:26 pm Last poll of Corbyn's leadership

Con: 52%
Lab 28%

It’s almost as if all that negative reporting, on a daily basis, had an impact on people’s opinions.

It’s lucky that, for some reason, the right wing media don’t have an issue with Sir Kier.

He got criticised for having a field

So he should, donkeys are filth.

Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 7:49 am

RedO wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 7:33 am

Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 9:26 pm Last poll of Corbyn's leadership

Con: 52%
Lab 28%

It’s almost as if all that negative reporting, on a daily basis, had an impact on people’s opinions.

It’s lucky that, for some reason, the right wing media don’t have an issue with Sir Kier.

He got criticised for having a field

What goes around. Right now the media are having a feeding frenzy over Cummings. Hanging on by the fingertips to keep it going, like Marr. No need to attack Starmer, field apart, he hasn’t really dome much other than ask questions and, in my opinion, act maturely in a time of crisis.

Once all this is over, and it will be, politics will get back to normal, Starmer will be expected to perform and I have little doubt prove a massive upgrade for Labour.

I-Keir is proving a success without actually doing anything.

Brilliant.

Disoriented wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 7:47 am I-Keir is proving a success without actually doing anything.

Brilliant.

So he hasn't sacked the women mp yet? Funny cos he said he'd sack Cummings for doing what he did. Seems like a hypocrite to me.

Thor wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:29 pm

Disoriented wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 7:47 am I-Keir is proving a success without actually doing anything.

Brilliant.

So he hasn't sacked the women mp yet? Funny cos he said he'd sack Cummings for doing what he did. Seems like a hypocrite to me.

You cannot sack a M.P. simply for what she has done.

Advisors however, can be.

Should Robert Jenrick have similarly resigned (or been sacked) from his Cabinet Position then?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... AGAIN.html

Far be it from me to call YOU the hypocrite - but I don't remember for you calling for him to be punished?

Nice to see Tom Watson being rejected for a peerage.

NuneatonO's wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:38 pm

Thor wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:29 pm

Disoriented wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 7:47 am I-Keir is proving a success without actually doing anything.

Brilliant.

So he hasn't sacked the women mp yet? Funny cos he said he'd sack Cummings for doing what he did. Seems like a hypocrite to me.

You cannot sack a M.P. simply for what she has done.

Advisors however, can be.

Should Robert Jenrick have similarly resigned (or been sacked) from his Cabinet Position then?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... AGAIN.html

Far be it from me to call YOU the hypocrite - but I don't remember for you calling for him to be punished?

Jenrick should have been sacked twice in the last few weeks, yes.

RedO wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 2:52 pm

NuneatonO's wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:38 pm

Thor wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:29 pm

So he hasn't sacked the women mp yet? Funny cos he said he'd sack Cummings for doing what he did. Seems like a hypocrite to me.

You cannot sack a M.P. simply for what she has done.

Advisors however, can be.

Should Robert Jenrick have similarly resigned (or been sacked) from his Cabinet Position then?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... AGAIN.html

Far be it from me to call YOU the hypocrite - but I don't remember for you calling for him to be punished?

Jenrick should have been sacked twice in the last few weeks, yes.

There needs to be a full investigation into this. Including a forensic analysis of ALL of his finances.

NuneatonO's wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:38 pm

Thor wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:29 pm

Disoriented wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 7:47 am I-Keir is proving a success without actually doing anything.

Brilliant.

So he hasn't sacked the women mp yet? Funny cos he said he'd sack Cummings for doing what he did. Seems like a hypocrite to me.

You cannot sack a M.P. simply for what she has done.

Advisors however, can be.

Should Robert Jenrick have similarly resigned (or been sacked) from his Cabinet Position then?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... AGAIN.html

Far be it from me to call YOU the hypocrite - but I don't remember for you calling for him to be punished?

To be honest I never saw that. But yes he should also be removed.

You can’t have the ruling elite saying do this, do that to the mass population and then say “f*** em I’m gonna do what I want” it’s not acceptable behaviour. Let’s face it, if you know someone is doing it you’ll be more likely to follow on the basis of if it’s good enough for them it’s good enough for me.

That’s the trouble with Westminster these past few years, they don’t give a damm about the man or women in the street.

Thor wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 7:43 pm

NuneatonO's wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:38 pm

Thor wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:29 pm

So he hasn't sacked the women mp yet? Funny cos he said he'd sack Cummings for doing what he did. Seems like a hypocrite to me.

You cannot sack a M.P. simply for what she has done.

Advisors however, can be.

Should Robert Jenrick have similarly resigned (or been sacked) from his Cabinet Position then?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... AGAIN.html

Far be it from me to call YOU the hypocrite - but I don't remember for you calling for him to be punished?

To be honest I never saw that. But yes he should also be removed.

You can’t have the ruling elite saying do this, do that to the mass population and then say “f*** em I’m gonna do what I want” it’s not acceptable behaviour. Let’s face it, if you know someone is doing it you’ll be more likely to follow on the basis of if it’s good enough for them it’s good enough for me.

That’s the trouble with Westminster these past few years, they don’t give a damm about the man or women in the street.

Since 2010, yes.

Disoriented wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 10:23 pm

Thor wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 7:43 pm

NuneatonO's wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:38 pm

You cannot sack a M.P. simply for what she has done.

Advisors however, can be.

Should Robert Jenrick have similarly resigned (or been sacked) from his Cabinet Position then?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... AGAIN.html

Far be it from me to call YOU the hypocrite - but I don't remember for you calling for him to be punished?

To be honest I never saw that. But yes he should also be removed.

You can’t have the ruling elite saying do this, do that to the mass population and then say “f*** em I’m gonna do what I want” it’s not acceptable behaviour. Let’s face it, if you know someone is doing it you’ll be more likely to follow on the basis of if it’s good enough for them it’s good enough for me.

That’s the trouble with Westminster these past few years, they don’t give a damm about the man or women in the street.

Since 2010, yes.

Blimey

https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/a ... -secretary

Bit of a mismatch between the headline and what he's actually saying there. People who are earning should receive more than they do now, not more than those not earning.

Both me and my wife earn a bit more than average salaries but before we got the 30 free hours a week (which every parent knows isn't really 30 hours a week) every third month when we had hit the threshold for tax free childcare my rent, nursery and household bills were more than I earnt, . Thats not taking into account food or any other expenditure. As much as I enjoy my job actually paying to work was a bit galling.