[Closed] Should Theresa May resign?

Jambs, no deal means

Hard border in NI
Deporting all EU citizens , how many doctors, nurses, etc etc?
All those Brit retirees being sent back too
End of all EU scientific collaboration, ESA, LHC, iter?
End of terrorism information sharing
Immediate damage to trade, customs checks supply chains and single market access would mean manufactures would leave on droves.
[url= http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/853811484835908129/pdf/WPS7947.pdf ]World Bank reckons if the UK shifted from EU to WTO terms, trade in goods with the EU would halve and trade in services would fall 60 per cent.[/url]

'No deal' is a fantasy for the gullible
Even Someone as ill-equipped as Davis knows it's an empty threat, let alone the EU.

kimbers - Member

Jambs, no deal means
Deporting all EU citizens
All those Brit retirees being sent back too

Doesn't, actually. Just means that the only decision we'd influence is whether or not to deport EU citizens. And the EU could decide on whether to deport ours. We wouldn't be compelled to deport anyone and neither would they

I suppose you're right

It's not like we'd be foolish enough to do something completely wreckless based on ignorance and xenophobia 😉

I mean, You couldn't possibly imagine the mail or sun demanding we deport any foreigners !

With no deal, UK workers abroad would all need work visas. And similarly, all the EU citizens here would also need work visas, which would require going through all the tiered sponsoring employer craziness. Not to mention getting some health insurance and proving they can support themselves.

So effectively most would have to return back to wherever they came from.

'No deal' is a fantasy for the gullible

Which is not to say it won't happen.

I'd think the likely scenario is A50 is cancelled and we're told to come back when we're serious.

Can it actually be cancelled?

Doesn't that require agreement not only from us (dysfunctional government is going to struggle) but also all 27 remaining EU countries?

Eventually you get to a point where it's simply not possible for all of those countries to agree in time, even if they want to.

At that point, A50 goes ahead by default and we're into WTO territory with no deal.

And effectively we get there earlier than that anyway - for example, would Tesco be able to place orders for tomatoes from Holland to be delivered after the cut-off date?

I doubt the EU would deport all the retirees but it would mean an end to free healthcare for them and insurance will be prohibitive so most would come back to the UK

Can it actually be cancelled?

And effectively we get there earlier than that anyway - for example, would Tesco be able to place orders for tomatoes from Holland to be delivered after the cut-off date?

Back to the original should TM resign, given her recent political moves it's a no, there is no way that woman could successfully manage to resign.

oldnpastit - Member
I'd think the likely scenario is A50 is cancelled and we're told to come back when we're serious.
Can it actually be cancelled?

Nothing is A50 states that it can't, and nothing in the published guide lines state that it can't either. So imo it's entirely possible.

It also looks to me like the EU will push these negotiations to the point of a cliff edge anyhow.(hope the tories are taking lessons from their DUP friends here 😆 ) for a few reasons, one is the stipulation that "nothing is agreed till everything is agreed"(seems a tall order in 18 months to me) secondly the definite date that's unlikely to be extended imo. And lastly the EU are going to be entirely transparent and publish everything about the negotiations as it happens and keep everything very transparent from their point of view, I don't see how having everything in the open won't cause arguments in the UK, ye can bet the tories would want everything thing private if at all possible.

I'm speculating from a laymans view point though, I have no inside knowledge, just what everyone else can read.

At least the tory press have her back
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
and by her back I mean just lining it all up and sharpening the knives

tjagain - Member
I doubt the EU would deport all the retirees but it would mean an end to free healthcare for them and insurance will be prohibitive so most would come back to the UK

especially if they now have to pay for the shiney new hospital built on the costa del sol for brit retirees

Not sure half a million non economically active peolpe contribute much - I suppose their pensions are being paid by the UK so that is income

they'll create jobs etc no doubt, they don't just exist in a self sufficient bubble.

seosamh77 - Member
they'll create jobs etc no doubt, they don't just exist in a self sufficient bubble.

It's only fair that they apply for visa's and are assessed in the same way as people from around the world.

Edit and that BoJo BBC interview is a full on motorway pile up. I thought the BBC were meant to be going easy on the government?? Straight in with a tough question and then more!! How very dare they

the healthcare one is a biggie. I doubt they would be eligible for the state run insurance so would need fully private insurance and for older folk with existing medical conditions this will simply be unaffordable

You could be talking thousands a month. Certainly hundreds

dunno i'm no expert on that.

So shouold May resign? from whos pint of view? Tory party - no - they want her to carry the can for the mess. No one wants to step in to try to sort out the mess apart from the terminally deluded who would be blocked by the sensible part of the party. Labour? I think quite happy for her to carry on digging a hole for herself in the short term. They want another election not May to resign and somone else put in place. For the good of the country? Certainly

[quote=Northwind ]I got an email from my local Labour candidate, telling us how well he'd done in coming in 3rd and increasing his vote share by 2.8%. But they reduced the SNP vote! I sent him an email back telling him **** off, after 20 years you damn nearly made us a Tory seat again, because all you could talk about was "the SNP must be stopped" and all they had to say was "correct- and Labour can't do it in this seat". And played out nationally, that helped the Tories to 13 seats and government. That's not a pyrrhic victory, it's a pyrrhic 3rd place.

I'm tempted to point out that the SNP have won the Tories the last 2 elections - in 2015 they won it for the Tories in England, in 2017 they won it for them in Scotland!

aracer - Member

I'm tempted to point out that the SNP have won the Tories the last 2 elections - in 2015 they won it for the Tories in England, in 2017 they won it for them in Scotland!

Eh. That doesn't make any sense. In 2015 the ridiculous "vote labour get SNP" campaign definitely swung some voters but that's not the SNP winning it for the Tories, that's the Tories winning it for the Tories by playing on English voters' smallmindedness. And in 2017 they didn't win it for the Tories anywhere, in any sense.

You can't lay the blame for English prejudice in 2015 at the feet of the snp! 😆 that was the Tories them selves that planted that seed.

Re2017 318 - 13 is still a larger number than 262-7. Or the lib Dems12 - 4

England Wales ni result
305+10 = 315
255+8+13(-7 sinnfein) = 269

Seems to me that 269 isn't 13 higher than 315! 😆

[quote=seosamh77 ]You can't lay the blame for English prejudice in 2015 at the feet of the snp! that was the Tories them selves that planted that seed.

Yeah, but they had to have something to plant it in.

[quote=Northwind ]And in 2017 they didn't win it for the Tories anywhere, in any sense.

Well some bloke on here suggested:

"the SNP must be stopped" and all they had to say was "correct- and Labour can't do it in this seat". And played out nationally, that helped the Tories to 13 seats

The indy refs are done for a bit aracer you can come out of character. 😆

@aracer, that's a nice nonsequitor you have there, but now could you explain how the SNP won the election for the Tories?

I'm taking the piss a bit, but check out the Scottish MPs in 2010 and tell me that the difference between then and now is nothing at all to do with the SNP. I'm simply following the logic of the rise of the SNP being rejected by some and resulting in them voting Tory in seats Labour used to hold.

There's a connection of course, that's fptp politics, everything is a vote for something and a vote against everything else. But that's not the same thing. And if you're going to say wot won it, and Labour essentially campaigned for the Tories, then it's daft to put the "credit" anywhere else. Scottish Labour themselves are proud of this achievement. Apparently it never even occured to them to win the argument, they were so excited about how they could lose.

I know SNP = Bad but you can't expect them to win all the seats, all the time,

Labour are responsible for the 13 scots tory seats - the election up here was labour, tory, lib dem against the SNP - they colluded and had a virtual non agression / tactical voting pact. Its a disgrace

Why the need to take the piss out of AF's appearance btw?

It was wrong when it was aimed at Diane Abbott and it's equally wrong when aimed at Arlene.

Just sayin'.

People voting Tory are responsible for Tory seats. A bit of a leap but. Think the logic is sound. 😆

Didn't Das Maybot quote this morning "my plans for a hard Brexit are in tatters" or something to that effect.

I can answer that Luv. Yes, because You Have NO Plans.
And the "immigration pledge" has been dropped too.

She looked remarkably ill yesterday, maybe she ought to lie down and take the weight off her brain.

Also good to see a turnout in Town protesting against her..

I'm kind of disappointed in you guys, all of you can do nuance and understand there is more than one cause to things, but you're looking at things in a very one dimensional way:

[quote=seosamh77 ]People voting Tory are responsible for Tory seats. A bit of a leap but. Think the logic is sound.

FFS Joe - I'm sure you can cope with looking at the causes behind why people vote a certain way.

If it helps at all, I'm not suggesting it's the fault of the SNP, but what exactly has caused the election of Tory MPs in seats they haven't held since before the poll tax (feel free to correct me on this, I've not checked the details of how seats have been held, but very recently the Tories were all but wiped out in Scotland)?

I'm actually interested in a sensible discussion on this (yeah, I know this is probably the wrong thread, but the thought was prompted by NW's post). How have the Tories done so well in Scotland relative to the rest of the UK and relative to their position in every other election since 1997? I'm also wondering whether TM would still be in Downing Street if the SNP hadn't been so bullish about Indyref2 and made that such a significant issue for the unionists (small u) in Scotland this election.

She's off to Brussels today for a bit more humiliation. Bet seeing Macron is the hardest part with his huge majority voted in on an actual manifesto and with a genuine mandate.

It gets worse as, after she's delivered her hugely popular Brexit 'plans' she gets booted out and they discuss who will be getting the prestigious European Medicines and Banking authority.

She's the PM that's steering the UK straight onto the rocks and she knows it

? I'm also wondering whether TM would still be in Downing Street if the SNP hadn't been so bullish about Indyref2 and made that such a significant issue for the unionists (small u) in Scotland this election.

Get ye to the indyref thread with this stuff

Anyway I think it was Davidson and her team who cunningly kept the debate on a 2nd ref, sturgeon was trying to avoid it.

The Tories in England seem to have no one even vaguely as competent as Ruth!

Why the need to take the piss out of AF's appearance btw?

Yup - let's concentrate on pillorying absolutely everything about Boris Johnson.

How have the Tories done so well in Scotland relative to the rest of the UK and relative to their position in every other election since 1997?

I'm kind of disappointed in you guys, all of you can do nuance and understand there is more than one cause to things, but you're looking at things in a very one dimensional way:

seosamh77 » People voting Tory are responsible for Tory seats. A bit of a leap but. Think the logic is sound.
FFS Joe - I'm sure you can cope with looking at the causes behind why people vote a certain way.

If it helps at all, I'm not suggesting it's the fault of the SNP, but what exactly has caused the election of Tory MPs in seats they haven't held since before the poll tax (feel free to correct me on this, I've not checked the details of how seats have been held, but very recently the Tories were all but wiped out in Scotland)?

I'm actually interested in a sensible discussion on this (yeah, I know this is probably the wrong thread, but the thought was prompted by NW's post). How have the Tories done so well in Scotland relative to the rest of the UK and relative to their position in every other election since 1997? I'm also wondering whether TM would still be in Downing Street if the SNP hadn't been so bullish about Indyref2 and made that such a significant issue for the unionists (small u) in Scotland this election.

So it's now seen as acceptable to come out of the shadows again, which doens't really explain the size of her vote.

I think polarization of the nationalist/unionist vote is where the battle lines really where (and tbh sturgeon got it wrong, she started the idea of a indyref2 and the tories ran with it after may called the election(calling sturgeons bluff somewhat), sturgeon imo mis calculated that the debate should have been a wider discussion. So the SNP largely couldn't shift their vote as many minds where focused on indyref and the SNP position just lead to confusion, either go for it or don't, the ambiguity didn't help on what should have been a black and white campaign, imo.

Labour were just impotent all round, as I've mention many people wanted to vote Labour, due to Corbyn, but SLABs message was completely at odds to that, so there was extreme reluctance to vote SLAB despite the natural inclination, particular with a socialist leader in London(A massive black mark against Dugdale, people personally don't want to vote for her or her party).

Ultimately, Davidson got her tactics right and the other 2 floundered. But there's also the fact that the SNP was massively over inflated due to 2014, their 56 seats was always going to be erroded, but credit to the tories they did do extremely well. Shame on labour for a frankly apalling performance, the certainly a big chance to get alot of seats back. But then again, they also aren't viewed as the protectors of the union, so how many they could have won is up for debate.

She looked remarkably ill yesterday, maybe she ought to lie down and take the weight off her brain.

She's now effectively a hostage in Downing Street. In a kidnapping ordered by herself.

She has been totally humiliated, and what power she had has utterly evaporated. She's a dead man walking, and everyone knows it.

But... any attempt to leave would bring about a leadership election that would (at best for the Tory's) see the 2 sides of the party set about each other like rats in a sack, and at worst trigger a general election that they would definitely lose. And who knows... maybe some rioting thrown in, just to top it off

So she's clearly been told to sit there and [url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/please-stay-while-we-savour-your-humiliation-britain-tells-may-20170609129137 ]suck it up[/url], presumably until things look better for the Tory party.

With David Davis clowning around in Europe, and the fallout from recent tragic events, can you see that being any time soon? or indeed ever.

They're all simply sitting impotently, powerlessly, sucking their thumbs, desperately trying to postpone the inevitable.

I'll give it 6 weeks, tops!

I'll give it 6 weeks, tops!

[quote=seosamh77 ]I think polarization of the nationalist/unionist vote is where the battle lines really where (and tbh sturgeon got it wrong, she started the idea of a indyref2 and the tories ran with it after may called the election(calling sturgeons bluff somewhat)

QED

I'll give it 6 weeks, tops!

Michael Portillo on "This Week" reckoned she'd want to be gone before the Tory conference.

...but who would take over? There's nobody. For that matter, who would *want* to take over?

In the meantime the Labour party's hijacking by Momentum is looking permanent - the deselection of moderates in the PLP is inevitable now.

Not a good time for the UK, and not a good time to be lacking a significant third political party, IMHO.

[quote=AlexSimon ]Do you think they'll get through the next week? I'm in two minds. Labour need to step it up imo.

I reckon Labour and Corbyn are doing a fine job. They just need to give the Tories enough rope without going over the top - I've already heard comments suggesting that Corbyn is being overly critical (from people who would have laughed at him 2 months ago but are now taking him seriously) and they have to be careful of not alienating people by overdoing the attacks.

I can just imagine the private conversation yesterday "are you enjoying being PM, Theresa?"

[quote=outofbreath ]...but who would take over? There's nobody. For that matter, who would *want* to take over?

I've no doubt there is a long list of people with ambition who'd be more than happy to take a poisoned chalice if it was their only chance. I suspect the situation still rules out BoJo assuming his brain isn't overruled by his ego - but then I'm still not sure if he is too distasteful to too many to stand a chance anyway even now. But there is still Loathsome and plenty more like her waiting for their chance.

I'm not sure they should or need to attack. Just act as if they are the natural government imo.

I'm still not sure if he is too distasteful to too many to stand a chance

He is. In the last leadership battle it was quite clear he's the Tory Corbyn - the membership love him, the MPs can't stomach him. BoJo will not lead the Tory party because the MPs will not allow it.

I suspect the situation still rules out BoJo assuming his brain isn't overruled by his ego

I thought General Elections were the biggest drain on political party funds, and that it took them a few years to build up funds again after each GE.

Are all the parties going to be able to fund another campaign if it happens in the next few months, especially the Conservatives? Many potential wealthy donors may not want to back the Conservatives if they look likely to lose, and also they may not donate if they expect to be harmed by Brexit.

In the meantime the Labour party's hijacking by Momentum is looking permanent - the deselection of moderates in the PLP is inevitable now.

I suggest you take more water with it. The reality is that Labour's manifesto is moderately left of centre - the sort of thing which is commonplace in most of Europe.

I'm not sure they should or need to attack. Just act as if they are the natural government imo.

I'm not sure they are 'about' winning elections. This was never about winning in 2020 (or 2017 as it turned out) this was always about changing PLP to be in line with the Labour membership. JC/JM/DA were as suprised as anyone else they got within 50 seats of the Torys.

They're playing the long game. Being in a position to deselect the moderate Labour MPs and change the Labour party leadership rules is what matters to them, not immediate power.

Digression: Anyone know if the constituency boundary changes will happen in 2018 as planned?

I reckon Gove and BoJo's egos would make them believe they are perfectly capable of single-handedly turning the current situation around.

I reckon David Davis vainglorious detachment from reality when it comes to appraising his own (very limited) abilities, would see him unable to chuck his name in too

I'm putting a tenner on it being Phil. Remember that the vast majority of Tory MPs were remainers, and I think there's a desire to stop this ludicrously self-destructive Hard Brexit stance, put the grown ups back in charge, and put the hysterical right wingers back in their box

Digression: Anyone know if the constituency boundary changes will happen in 2018 as planned?

In yet more delicious irony, thats been kicked into touch by the DUP, as the boundary changes would favour Sinn Fein

The reality is that Labour's manifesto is moderately left of centre - the sort of thing which is commonplace in most of Europe.

Nationalizing multiple large industries in 5 years at the same time as leaving the EU is commonplace in most of Europe? Care to name a single country that's done that in the modern era?

Nationalizing multiple large industries in 5 years at the same time as leaving the EU is commonplace in most of Europe? Care to name a single country that's done that in the modern era?

I'm pretty sure you can't blame Labour for Brexit, given that most of its supporters voted to remain. No, see the Tories for that one.

Turning to nationalization, no, that's not what they're proposing. I suppose you might believe that if your thinking is outsourced to the Daily Mail.

In yet more delicious irony, thats been kicked into touch by the DUP, as the boundary changes would favour Sinn Fein

I didn't know that - do you have a link?

I'm pretty sure you can't blame Labour for Brexit, given that most of its supporters voted to remain. No, see the Tories for that one.

I'm not blaming them for putting leaving the EU in their manifesto. I'm saying it isn't commonplace in Europe. You're saying the stuff in their manifesto *is* commonplace in Europe. You're wrong.

Turning to nationalization, no, that's not what they're proposing.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/10/labour-party-manifesto-pledges-to-end-tuition-fees-and-nationalise-railways

In yet more delicious irony, thats been kicked into touch by the DUP, as the boundary changes would favour Sinn Fein

Linky?

Are all the parties going to be able to fund another campaign if it happens in the next few months, especially the Conservatives? Many potential wealthy donors may not want to back the Conservatives if they look likely to lose, and also they may not donate if they expect to be harmed by Brexit.

IIRC tories spent £12m on their campaign, labour £4m
Maybot was out schmoozing big money donors the other night at a fundraiser, so the tories are preparing

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-savoy_uk_59493a8ce4b07499199ed1a6

[url= http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/818302/Conservatives-DUP-Theresa-May-Arlene-Foster-Election-2017 ]Why boundry changes weren't in the Queens Speech[/url]

You really couldn't make it up. The true scale of Mays **** up snowballs by the day 😆

I didn't know that - do you have a link?

It was discussed on here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08wr7ss

I'm not blaming them for putting leaving the EU in their manifesto. I'm saying it isn't commonplace in Europe. You're saying the stuff in their manifesto *is* commonplace in Europe. You're wrong.

Give over. You were doing your usual shtick about Labour being hard left. There is nothing in their manifesto to support your claim, as you know perfectly well.

Turning to nationalization, no, that's not what they're proposing.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/10/labour-party-manifesto-pledges-to-end-tuition-fees-and-nationalise-railways
br />

Yep, Labour are not proposing what you claim. Next!

really theyll kill the boundry changes? that wouldve gained them, what 20-30 seats

all to hang on to 10 DUP votes

thats hilarious the DUP arent just retoxifying the tories they are hobbling them too!

Why boundry changes weren't in the Queens Speech

I'm starting to like the devils' pact!

There is nothing in their manifesto to support your claim, as you know perfectly well.

I claimed Momentum have taken over the Labour party and that the PLP will now be 'adjusted' to be more like the Labour Membership.

You didn't even address that claim. You argued that the manifesto commitments were commonplace in Europe which is irrelevant to whether the Labour Party has been taken over or not.

However I chose to respond to that non-sequitur and I've given you two examples of significant things in the manifesto that are not commonplace in Europe.

Blimey outofbreath - you're sounding a lot like jamba.
The position they are trying to get back to is very similar to many countries in Europe.
You said "Nationalizing multiple large industries" and then only point to rail, which is a franchise model anyway leased anyway, so not a large cost to take back when franchises come to an end.

When the east coast line was run by a public franchise Directly Operated Railways made a billion pounds for the treasury.

Corbyn himself seems very receptive to moderate MPs as long as they aren't constantly trying to undermine his leadership. For the moment they have common ground in that they all support the manifesto and are seeking to get JC as PM. I don't see why the knives would be out.

Why boundry changes weren't in the Queens Speech

Ta. Staggering.

I claimed Momentum have taken over the Labour party and that the PLP will now be 'adjusted' to be more like the Labour Membership.

You didn't even address that claim. You argued that the manifesto commitments were commonplace in Europe which is irrelevant to whether the Labour Party has been taken over or not.

You know how burden of proof works, right?

It's an odd day when you feel grateful that a bunch of flag-waving bigots like the DUP are in a position of influence, if it's true they've put the brakes on Tory plans to gerrymander the entire election system.

You know how burden of proof works, right?

This, very much this

http://newsthump.com/2017/06/22/eu-leaders-told-not-to-laugh-at-theresa-may/

[quote=martinhutch ]It's an odd day when you feel grateful that a bunch of flag-waving bigots like the DUP are in a position of influence, if it's true they've put the brakes on Tory plans to gerrymander the entire election system.

Gerrymandering opposed by NI Unionists, who'd have thunk it?

I don't see why the knives would be out.

Because as it is the PLP would never allow another momentum friendly candidate onto the leadership ballot.

Momentum *have* to change the rules ASAP or when Corbyn goes (for whatever reason - he's no spring chicken) Momentum's control ends.

There comes a point where lies are so obvious

I think that point is where a couple of posts after I link to two nationalizations in the Labour manifesto you claim I only linked to one!

You know how burden of proof works, right?

Yes, that's why I linked to two nationalizations to support my claim.

I claimed Momentum have taken over the Labour party and that the PLP will now be 'adjusted' to be more like the Labour Membership.

You know how burden of proof works, right?

Yes, that's why I linked to two nationalizations to support my claim.

How convincing!

How convincing!

Facts usually are!

I claimed Momentum have taken over the Labour party and that the PLP will now be 'adjusted' to be more like the Labour Membership.

You didn't dispute that.

You ignored it and instead argued that the Labour manifesto was commonplace in European countries. That's what we disagreed about that that's what I provided facts to back up.

I think that point is where a couple of posts after I link to two nationalizations in the Labour manifesto you claim I only linked to one!

Facts usually are!

Feel free to present some in support of your claim.

You'll have to be explicit - I still can't find it.

From the link above:

Corbyn will lay out plans to take parts of Britain’s energy industry back into public ownership alongside the railways and the Royal Mail

Mail is in the headline too.

Feel free to present some in support of your claim.

LOL, you didn't dispute it when I wrote it, however:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/18/secret-tape-reveals-momentum-plot-to-link-with-unite-seize-control-of-labour

Just out of interest do you disagree with my opinion? Do you think that the PLP are in step with Momentum and if Jeremy Corbyn went under a bus tomorrow the PLP would put a Momentum friendly candidate forward? Or would they put people like Chukka forward?

Given that do you think the Labour Leadership rules and the PLP will need to be changed ASAP to allow future momentum friendly candidates to be put to the membership, or not?

Corbyn will lay out plans to take parts of Britain’s energy industry back into public ownership

The proposal is to have a publicly-owned offer in each region. That is not nationalization.

Now, about your claim that Momentum has taken over the party. Evidence, please!

plenty of European countries have nationalised rail, utilities etc or at least state owned franchises

plenty of those state run companies also run subsidy hoovering providers here too, dutch, german, french, + chinese, japanese etc

The proposal is to have a publicly-owned offer in each region. That is not nationalization.

I didn't say it was. I said there were multiple Nationalizations in the Labour manifesto. You even quoted it.

plenty of European countries have nationalised rail, utilities etc or at least state owned franchises

Cool, so name some that have both left the EU and nationalized multiple industries within 5 years. Apparently it's commonplace.

I didn't say it was. I said there were multiple Nationalizations in the Labour manifesto. You even quoted it.

You offered energy as an example of nationalization. It isn't.

Now, about your claim that Momentum has taken over the party. Evidence, please!

You offered energy as an example of nationalization. It isn't.

I offered an article that mentioned two nationalizations. Rail & Mail. I did that to support my claim that Labour's Manifesto incluided multiple nationalizations. Yes the article mentioned many other things that were not Nationalizations.

Now, about your claim that Momentum has taken over the party. Evidence, please!

See post above with link.