Election 2019 - Week 3

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

At best, it's disingenuous of Labour to squeal about "privatisation", And the evidence of pushing for much further privatisation is...........?

Not this Labour Party. It can't simultaneously be responsible for privatisation and Marxist. Unless of course you just make up baseless labels in the absence of evidence in your desperation to protect the Conservative party from criticism, of course.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

And discussing items that are non-negotiable is a total waste of time.

Nothing has been agreed but we certainly have the Ministerial steer.

One side will put forward a series of things they might want to discuss. Nothing unusual about that. The other side hasn't been involved in preparing that list. Sort of thing that goes on with any sort of negotiations. Eg If a Trade Union comes up with a set of proposals, have the employers been involved in preparing that list? Have they agreed to anything in that list? Will everything on that list automatically be implemented?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

One side will put forward a series of things they might want to discuss. Nothing unusual about that. The other side hasn't been involved in preparing that list. Sort of thing that goes on with any sort of negotiations. Eg If a Trade Union comes up with a set of proposals, have the employers been involved in preparing that list? Have they agreed to anything in that list? Will everything on that list automatically be implemented?

And items that aren't up for discussion don't make the list, presumably.

Items that do make the list are up for discussion. The evidence backs that up.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

And items that aren't up for discussion don't make the list, presumably.

Items that do make the list are up for discussion. The evidence backs that up.

"might want to discuss" is in the FUTURE. The response to a particular item might well be "not happening" or simply "sub-item A=yes, sub-item B=no, sub-item C=possible with changes". Absolutely nothing decided or agreed upon.

Certain quarters are always complaining when proposals put forward at a Labour party conference that have been put forward and agreed, are being used to say "Labour will do X". A key difference is that there no two-sided negotiation and agreement is involved, it's just one-sided imposition by a Labour government.

UK Governments produce "Green" and "White" papers on propositions. They are not intended to be the final version, they are up for discussion.
Link

Green Papers are consultation documents produced by the Government. The aim of this document is to allow people both inside and outside Parliament to give the department feedback on its policy or legislative proposals.

Link

White papers are policy documents produced by the Government that set out their proposals for future legislation. White Papers are often published as Command Papers and may include a draft version of a Bill that is being planned. This provides a basis for further consultation and discussion with interested or affected groups and allows final changes to be made before a Bill is formally presented to Parliament.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

"might want to discuss" is in the FUTURE. The response to a particular item might well be "not happening" or simply "sub-item A=yes, sub-item B=no, sub-item C=possible with changes". Absolutely nothing decided or agreed upon.

Certain quarters are always complaining when proposals put forward at a Labour party conference that have been put forward and agreed, are being used to say "Labour will do X". A key difference is that there no two-sided negotiation and agreement is involved, it's just one-sided imposition by a Labour government.

UK Governments produce "Green" and "White" papers on propositions. They are not intended to be the final version, they are up for discussion.
Link
Link

I'm not sure what your point is. I'll assume that your use of FUTURE makes that the key point.

Yes, I'm happy to concede that the Conservatives intend to further privatise the NHS and tie it to unfavourable conditions in FUTURE trade talks with the United States.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

I'm not sure what your point is. I'll assume that your use of FUTURE makes that the key point.

Yes, I'm happy to concede that the Conservatives intend to further privatise the NHS and tie it to unfavourable conditions in FUTURE trade talks with the United States.

"In the future" refers to "might want to discuss". Nothing determined either way.



And the evidence is.....


A Trade Union may issue a list of demands or proposals ahead of negotiations, doesn't mean the employers have had any input in that list or have agreed to anything.

In this situation the officials taking part don't have the authority to exclude anything.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

"In the future" refers to "might want to discuss". Nothing determined either way.

And the evidence is.....


A Trade Union may issue a list of demands or proposals ahead of negotiations, doesn't mean the employers have had any input in that list or have agreed to anything.

In this situation the officials taking part don't have the authority to exclude anything.

They take their steer from Ministers.

Anything otherwise is insubordination. If the steer from Ministers is that the NHS isn't on the table this document would not exist.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

They take their steer from Ministers.

Anything otherwise is insubordination. If the steer from Ministers is that the NHS isn't on the table this document would not exist.

Where does it say what the approach of the UK? is? This is all about what the US, NOT THE UK, wants to discuss. The UK officials have to include everything the US mentions, to put it to the UK government.


Which should we believe? The Labour Party Manifesto, or what was discussed, approved, and agreed, at the 2019 Labour Party Conference? Your arguments imply that not only are the Conference proposals the ones that will actually take place under Labour, but anything else discussed and NOT agreed will also be implemented.

Originally Posted by jfman

They take their steer from Ministers.

Anything otherwise is insubordination. If the steer from Ministers is that the NHS isn't on the table this document would not exist.

Seems pretty clear to me that the “steer” was to go to the USA and ask them “what would you want out of a trade deal?”

Everything else is hyperbole and boleaux from a Labour Party that knows its on the ropes and hasn’t a clue what to do, except to play its usual NHS card as shrilly as possible.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Says he posting a link to a news site.

Now that is funny.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

Seems pretty clear to me that the “steer” was to go to the USA and ask them “what would you want out of a trade deal?”

Everything else is hyperbole and boleaux from a Labour Party that knows its on the ropes and hasn’t a clue what to do, except to play its usual NHS card as shrilly as possible.

Seems "pretty clear" to Conservatives but as clear as mud to everyone else. I agree though the NHS card has probably been waiting to follow the cynical anti-Semitism card where a Jewish close personal friend of Johnson claims to speak for all of Jewry. It'll have been anticipated and countered.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

Not this Labour Party. It can't simultaneously be responsible for privatisation and Marxist.

Ha, that is naivety defined. Any political party, especially the ones we have are capable of anything. Duplicitous, deceitful, untrustworthy, outright lying. That is all of them i’m not making a distinction. So yes it can be that Labour Party.

Several posts of personal digs have been deleted.

Stop sniping at each other.

BREAKING: The Conservatives are set to win 359 seats according to a new poll, giving Boris Johnson a majority of 68.

The MRP poll for The Times also puts Labour on 211 seats, a loss of more than 40 MPs. In the last parliament, they had 262 seats.

The polling method is seen as authoritative because it predicted a hung parliament was likely in 2017 - and was proved correct.

The model used questioned 100,000 people over the course of seven days and adapted answers to account for age, gender, voting history and local political circumstances in individual constituencies.

It suggests the Conservatives could pick up 44 seats from Labour on 12 December, while the SNP would recover some losses in Scotland, getting eight seats back compared to 2017.

https://news.sky.com/story/general-e...-poll-11871956

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Ha, that is naivety defined. Any political party, especially the ones we have are capable of anything. Duplicitous, deceitful, untrustworthy, outright lying. That is all of them i’m not making a distinction. So yes it can be that Labour Party.

Hmmm, I’m not buying that. Not without wholesale change at the top, rewriting of party rules and expulsion of Momentum. It’d take years to make those changes. Longer than a Parliamentary term.